The Mormon History Conspiracy

For generations, the LDS Church has engaged in a well-orchestrated conspiracy to suppress troubling aspects of its history. With the advent of the Internet, however, more and more Mormons are finding these troubling facts and facing a faith crisis.

For many, worse than discovering these difficult truths is wrestling with the fact their Church has deceived them; that their leaders have hidden from them a good deal of important information while simultaneously requiring total commitment to the institution and to the leaders themselves; that while Church leaders have demanded complete honesty from members, the leaders have been playing by a different set of rules.

This has led to a mass disaffection from the Church, and has caused more than one member to exclaim, “I am not suffering from a faith crisis. The Church is suffering from a truth crisis.”

Now that the cat is out of the bag, one might think Church leaders would take responsibility for their actions that have caused so much spiritual and emotional devastation.

But instead, we find Church leaders casting about to place the blame for their suppression of Church history on anyone and everyone but themselves. In order to avoid taking responsibility for their cover-up of Church history, leaders are now engaged in a second cover-up to hide their role in the first cover-up.

The year is 1981. Elder Packer is addressing a large group of seminary teachers, institute instructors and BYU religion professors. He is also addressing Church scholars and historians. The subject is how to “properly” teach Church history.

Elder Packer is aware of recent publications revealing troubling aspects of Church history. Elder Packer expresses his familiarity with these inconvenient truths. He directs all Church teachers to engage in a conspiracy to tell only one side of Church history, and if they are researchers and writers, to write about only one side of Church history—the faith-promoting side.

Any troubling parts of the history are to be suppressed; they are not to be talked about nor written about. Elder Packer acknowledges that teaching troubling parts of the history will “destroy faith.”

Elder Packer goes further. He threatens any who do not do as he says with eternal consequences. He also gently hints that those who disobey him may find themselves looking for a new job.

Elder Packer decries an unnamed historian who was admitted into the “restricted” section of Church archives, made notes about what he found there, and later published on it. Elder Packer does not explain why the archives have a “restricted” section containing troubling information, nor does he specify what was discovered.

Elder Packer admonishes historians to not publish something just because it is already in print. He says that the first publication may go out of print and if the information in the first publication is not printed elsewhere, it may be forgotten.

Elder Packer claims those who mention the troubling history are in league with “the adversary.” In Elder Packer’s world view, it is Satan who wants the whole story told and God who deals in half-truths.

Then there is the money quote:

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not.Some things that are true are not very useful.

The remarkable thing about this talk is not just what it contains, but that it was ever stated publicly by a top-leader of the LDS Church. It is apparent that only a person completely certain of the justness of his cause would go public with this blueprint for hiding Church history from the members . . . and only a person completely oblivious to how it sounds to anyone else.

Regardless, there can be no question that the LDS Church has been involved in promoting and carrying out a conspiracy to suppress the truth from its members, and that this conspiracy emanates from top Church leadership. The leaders cannot avoid responsibility. Their fingerprints are all over it.

Church Manuals

Since 1981 when Elder Packer gave his address, the correlation program has kicked into high gear. The Church Correlation Committee is responsible for vetting any and all manuals used for teaching in church, seminary, institute and BYU religion classes. The CCC also reviews all articles in Church magazines and even General Conference talks to make sure they are doctrinally pure.

Church Public Affairs Head Michael Otterson recently stated that even “routine” news stories “cannot be posted without approval from Church Correlation, which has the responsibility to ensure that all Church communications are doctrinally sound and consistent.”

And who is in charge of the CCC? According to a current Church manual, “The First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve oversee correlation in the Church.”

This conspiracy goes all the way to the top.

The manuals have long been devoted to presenting exclusively the whitewashed version of Church history dictated in 1981 by Elder Packer. Teachers are directed to use solely “Church approved” manuals. If teachers feel the need to go outside the manual, they should use only other “Church approved” materials.

In other words, teachers should use only correlated materials to supplement the correlated materials.

This procedure ensures compliance with Elder Packer’s protocol of suppressing troubling history from members.

Anti-Mormon Literature

Church leaders have historically discouraged members from reading “anti-Mormon” literature. Though Church leaders seldom address the criticisms themselves, they have assured members that such literature contains nothing but “slander and false declarations,” not to mention “malicious and ridiculous statements.”

The message was clear—Anti-Mormon literature was full of falsehoods and the leadership would not stoop to addressing them. Members should avoid anti-Mormon lies and listen only to Church leaders and their correlated curricula.

But fate has played out a strange reversal. Because the Internet has provided easy access to the troubling history the Church has tried so long to suppress, the Church has been dragged kicking and screaming to the transparency table. As a direct result, the Church has been forced to post on its own website over the past two years a series of essays that largely admit the truth of what the anti-Mormons have been saying all along.

In retrospect, we can see the leadership’s unwillingness to specifically mention any of the “malicious and ridiculous statements” contained in the anti-Mormon literature was likely due less to their distaste for contention, and more because the lion’s share of the anti-Mormon “lies” were actually the truth the LDS Church sought to suppress.

And the Church has not been reticent about disciplining those who violated the Church’s mandate to suppress its troubling history. This has led to the unusual circumstance that a number of scholars and historians have been excommunicated for publishing what the Church now admits is true.

Many Mormons confronted with anti-Mormon claims denounced them as lies. Of course they did. Their leaders told them they were lies. And they trusted their leaders. Now those same Mormons find out the anti-Mormon claims were not lies after all, but were actually true. And that the leaders of their church were the ones doing the deceiving.

Now that members are increasingly discovering they have been deceived by their leaders, many feel betrayed. Some wonder what else the Church may be hiding.

So what does the Church do? Does the Church explain leaders were only doing what they thought best for members by keeping this information from them? Does the Church apologize and pledge never to do it again? Does the Church vow to be completely transparent in the future?

Well, actually no.

Instead, the Church is presently engaging in a second-cover up to hide the Church’s involvement in the first cover-up. Instead of taking responsibility for their actions, Church leaders are blaming anyone and everyone they possibly can other than themselves. Here are a few examples.

Blaming the Victim

Blaming the victim is never a classy move. But it is apparently not beneath the Church.

Not long ago, members who violated the counsel to avoid anti-Mormon literature, and were disturbed by what they learned, were blamed for reading too much. Now that the Church has admitted the truth of many anti-Mormon claims, members who are troubled are blamed for not reading enough.

I’m serious.

Elder D. Todd Christofferson said in 2013 that the “expanding access” we have to Church history raises “new questions,” and that it is not “realistic” to expect answers to all of them. He then warns not to “form conclusions based on unexamined assertions or incomplete research,” and admonishes, “Don’t study Church history too little.”

Here troubled members are subtly blamed for: (1) not being “realistic” in expecting answers to some questions; (2) coming to incorrect conclusions because they haven’t examined their assertions or done enough research; and, (3) not studying Church history enough.

Offensive as this is, Elder Christofferson tops himself in a breathtaking sentence regarding members with issues about Church history:

“They sometimes accuse the Church of hiding something because they only recently found or heard about it.”

Why on earth would anybody think the Church was hiding anything? Is it possibly because that is exactly what the Church has been doing for decades?

But note that Elder Christofferson doesn’t actually say the Church has not been hiding anything. He just leaves that impression. Is this another in a long list of “carefully worded denials” by Church leaders?

Elder Christofferson also implies the fault is with the member who “only recently found or heard about” the troubling information. Clearly they didn’t study enough.

But worst of all, Elder Christofferson blames members for finding the history Church leaders have hid from them. Something is very wrong with this picture.

Blaming Lack of Faith

A December 2014 Ensign article addresses doubts Latter-day Saints have from learning about Church history. But it doesn’t attempt to answer the questions. At least not directly. Instead, it blames members for not having enough faith in God:

“What do we do when doubt seeps into our hearts? Are there really answers to those hard questions? Yes, there are. In fact, all the answers—all the right answers—depend on the answer to just one question: do I trust God above everyone else?”

An outsider reading this would wonder what on earth trusting God has to do with doubts about Church history. But this is Mormon code-speak. When the article talks about trusting God, it really means trusting Church leaders. The unstated assumption understood by virtually all Mormons is that because Church leaders are prophets, they speak for God. They do what God tells them to do, and say what God tells them to say. Questioning leaders is therefore identical to questioning God. Not trusting leaders is tantamount to not trusting God.

So when the Ensign says there is just one question you have to answer in order to resolve all the other hard questions—“Do I trust God above everyone else?”—it really means, “Do I trust Church leaders above everyone else?” As long as you believe what current Church leaders tell you to believe, you don’t have to be bothered with all those pesky questions about what happened in Church history. Your doubts will magically vanish.

More insidiously, this article again blames the members who have doubts and questions. Such Mormons don’t trust God. Such Mormons don’t have enough faith. And such Mormons may now be conveniently dismissed and marginalized without ever having to say a word about the Church history that is actually giving them the doubts in the first place.

Blaming Church Historians

We have seen that Church historians have been directed by Church leadership to suppress negative aspects of Church history and present only the “faith-promoting” side. By and large, that is exactly what they have done. Church historians work for the Church so they better do what they are told if they expect to keep their job. There are those who have not done so and ended up pounding the pavement.

It would be a strange thing if the Church turned around and blamed its own historians for hiding the history. Yes, it would be strange. But that is what is happening.

In what has come to be called The Swedish Rescue, Church historians Marlin Jensen and Richard Turley made an unprecedented trip to Sweden in 2010 to try to resolve concerns of an increasing number of members relating to Church history.

Several angry Mormon Swedes voiced their concerns. A common theme involved why the Church had deceived them by hiding information and intentionally misrepresenting historical events.

This was met with the following question so trenchant its power survives the fact it was asked by a Swede for whom English is a second language:

“But we are led by revelation, the Church, so I mean, shouldn’t, then, the leaders correct so that not people every generation change the story? Or can we say this for every subject in the Church?”

Backed into a corner, Richard Turley incredibly threw himself and all other Church historians under the bus. He took a bullet for the prophet:

“Much of what you get about history comes from historians; from the people like me who do the best they can under the circumstances of their time. And then somebody else comes along later, with new discoveries, new documents, and they rewrite it, okay?

So it’s—Don’t put the responsibility on the prophet; put it on ordinary people like me who do the best we know how to do it. But somebody will come along and do it better.”

With answers like these, it is no wonder the Swedish Rescue was less than a rousing success. Richard Turley claims Church leaders shouldn’t be blamed for hiding history. Instead, Church historians should be blamed for hiding history . . . the way Church leaders told them to.

Even though Church leaders were clearly responsible for the Church history cover-up, a second cover-up is under way to keep Mormons from finding out about the first cover-up.

Blaming Artists

In next month’s Ensign, the Church will formally admit that Joseph Smith translated the Book of Mormon by placing a seer stone in a hat.

This raises a problem. For decades, the Church repeatedly published artwork and video of the Book of Mormon translation showing Joseph Smith studying the gold plates themselves. This in spite of the fact no witness describes the translation this way.

A picture is worth a thousand words, and an entire generation of Latter-day Saints has grown up and grown old believing the Church approved artwork and film was historically accurate. Now the Church is formally admitting this is not the case.

What to do? What to do?

Will the Church admit it intentionally misrepresented the translation process in art and film? Not bloody likely.

The Church knows its artistic misrepresentation of Mormon history is a problem for many members. (It was actually this very issue that led to the heated exchange at the Swedish Rescue quoted above.) That is why next month’s Ensign addresses the issue, though perhaps less than convincingly. It blames the artists.

“Over the years, artists have sought to portray the Book of Mormon translation, showing the participants in many settings and poses with different material objects. Each artistic interpretation is based upon its artist’s own views, research, and imagination, sometimes aided by input and direction from others.”

But blaming the artists will not do. First, Michael Otterson has already made it clear the Correlation Committee makes sure anything published by the Church is “doctrinally sound and consistent.” Are we to think Church correlation applies to everything other than art and film?

And we seem to be dealing with yet another “carefully worded denial.” Note that the new Ensign article mentions the “artistic interpretation” is “sometimes aided by input and direction from others.”

Who might these “others” be? We already know the answer is the Correlation Committee, though for some reason the article is bashful about saying so. And what might this “input and direction” consist of? Again the article doesn’t want to be precise, but we already know that the “input and direction” is given to make sure the official artwork is “doctrinally sound and consistent.”

In other words, any artwork contained in official Church publications is vetted to make sure it correctly represents the doctrinal position of the Church. And the vetting takes place under the direction of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve. With the result that nothing gets published without approval of top Church leadership.

It is therefore hard to see how anybody other than Church leaders can be blamed for false and misleading material being published by the Church, whether that material is expressed in word, art or film.

The new Ensign article includes a number of these familiar, if inaccurate, depictions of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon; only now taking care to title each as “Artist’s rendition of . . .,” or “Artist’s portrayal of . . ., ” or “Artist’s depiction of . . ..”

Can you spot the differences between the original and the Ensign version?

And finally, we must not overlook the fact that Church Correlation will modify even classic pieces of art to conform to Mormon doctrine. When the Ensign published Carl Henreich Bloch’s masterpiece, “The Resurrection” in December, 2011, the Church removed the wings from the angels. The Church even went so far as to add shoulder caps to the angels’ tunics. Presumably this is because they are female angels, and the Church added the shoulder caps to preserve their modesty. Jesus, on the other hand, gets away with showing a lot more skin.

The bottom line is this—Are we really expected to believe that the same Church that modifies famous pieces of art to conform to its notions of doctrinal correctness would allow depictions of Joseph Smith translating the Book of Mormon to be published in official Church venues without similar scrutiny?

How can the Church expect us to blame the artists when any depictions must go through the correlation sausage-grinder before seeing the light of day? It would make as much sense as blaming Carl Henreich Bloch for painting wingless angels.

Conclusion

Church leaders are in a jam. But it is a jam of their own making. First they insisted that Church teachers and historians present a one-sided and sanitized version of Church history. Then Church leaders attempted to ensure members would hear nothing else by correlating the history and requiring teachers use only correlated materials.

Now that this first cover-up is blowing up, Church leaders have a decision to make. They could take responsibility for their cover-up of Church history, or they could engage in a second cover-up by seeking to blame others for the first cover-up.

Unfortunately, they have gone for option number two.

But Church leaders can’t get out of this jam by blaming members for learning the history Church leaders tried to suppress. They can’t get out of this jam by blaming Church historians for hiding the history Church leaders told them to hide. And they can’t get out of this jam by blaming the artists whose artwork Church leaders would never have published unless they approved it.

The only way Church leaders can get out of this jam is by doing what they should have done in the first place.

Do what you tell members to do. Practice what you preach. Tell the truth. Do what is right, let the consequence follow. Be honest in all your dealings.

It should not be too much to expect from men who claim to be apostles of Jesus Christ.

Corbin Volluz lives in the beautiful foothills of the Cascade Mountains in western Washington state. He has been practicing law for 25-years with a focus on criminal defense and personal injury. Corbin joined the LDS Church in June of 1978, shortly after the lifting of the priesthood ban, and has been studying Mormonism ever since. He has been published in several venues, including the Journal of Book of Mormon Studies and BYU-Studies.

Thank you, Brian. The observations made in this post simply do not define the Mormonism I belong to. I do not deny any factual statements in this post. I do not deny that people have been hurt by church leaders and policies. While this may be all that some people can see (and I have repeatedly written defenses of those the church has harmed), I deny that these are the defining features of Mormonism or the LDS church.

“there can be no question that the LDS Church has been involved in promoting and carrying out a conspiracy to suppress the truth from its members”.

You have made an accusation. It is an accusation without nuance. It is a serious accusation of dishonesty. It is not simply an observation of error, but an accusation of active harm orchestrated by (by implication) an entire body of LDS church leaders, with Elder Packer as a specific scapegoat. I do question it. You don’t weigh competing needs or desires of a broad cross section of the LDS church or humanity. You don’t suggest that some church leaders may feel differently about these topics. You don’t identify that they may consider their primary goal that of bringing people to Christ, and consequently they may identify (correctly or not) various historical issues as distractions given the very limited time and means they have to work on their primary goal. You don’t make allowances for their limitations in understanding history. You have no knowledge of actions they may have taken less publicly to promote better knowledge of our history.

You fight the admittedly wrong blame game by blaming. You appear to be ranting on one of the difficulties faced by the LDS church rather than inviting dialogue or progress. If I have mischaracterized your post, I will be glad. If your intent is simply a defense of those who have been blamed, I can sympathize, but that is not the affect of what you have written. I find this approach to people distasteful.

I share this not so much because I want or expect you to change or retract anything, but because I don’t wish your views to appear to represent the collection of permabloggers at Rational Faiths. Each of us is encouraged to express our personal views within quite broad limits. I value that despite disagreeing with both tone and content in this post. I’ve had more than my say, so I’ll leave it alone now.

We can both agree that Packer was no friend to historians; and that we are paying for his influence on curriculum, etc. However, I think your post lacks some nuance and charity; particularly where the mid-Twentieth century “nationlist” historiographical paradigm is concerned. The so-called “greatest generation” was, if nothing else, great at recasting history in a way that played up the “great man” narratives and downplayed…well, anything to the contrary. I think this is more a question of historiography and worldviews than it is motive and intent; and I tend to treat it with more charity than disdain. From my personal experience of interning with the Church History Department, the “panopticon” environment is more a product of skittishness than intentional deception. You and I will surely disagree on that point.

> “expanding access” we have to Church history raises “new questions,” and that it is not “realistic” to expect answers to all of them.

This statement from Elder Christofferson is such nonsense. It is very realistic and very reasonable to expect answers to any and all questions. We aren’t asking for a specific answer, just an honest one. And if the honest answer is “don’t know,” then that’s the answer I want. Not hard.

The core problem here is that the church leadership likes to puff itself up with all the rhetoric about “modern revelation.” The leaders make claims about themselves and the church which simply are not true. They are liars, period. And I’m not talking about messy history, but just the day to day reality of what’s going on with the church right now today. The church is not honest about what is does and doesn’t know. Leaders are not forthright about their experiences. The message and branding are constantly manipulated to project an image that is simply not true. It may be well intended, to promote faith and all that, but it’s still just a lie.

I agree the Church has painted itself into a corner with its portrayal of the role and abilities of prophets.

Prophets must be doctrinally infallible, or the entire foundation of the LDS Church will crumble.

If we can’t trust the prophets about one thing, how can we trust the prophets about anything?

The Church came perilously close to that ledge with its December 2013 publication of the essay on Race and the Priesthood, where it tacitly admitted Brigham Young was influenced by cultural prejudices in promoting the ban.

Brigham Young seems to have become a convenient scapegoat for that sort of thing. But it is a much harder thing to say it about any other Church leader, though a little thought would lead us to the conclusion all of us are influenced by our culture . . . even Church leaders.

And the culture Church leaders are influenced by most today is the Church culture.

And the Church culture demands that prophets be doctrinally infallible.

Could not agree more
I believe they are lairs and have always been lairs and cheats from Joseph Smith on down. They may have had varying degrees of good intentions mixed in. But the evidence and my direct experience to me indicates that maintenance of power position and CONTROL supersede the truth at every turn. Lying and deception have been built in for nearly 200 years now.

I find your post to be enlightening, and I want to commend you for your courage and diligence. All my life, you have been a faithful and interested man. For the time I have been alive, you have been an exceptional teacher, who I know I can trust not to B.S. me and to do your research.
This being said, I’d like to point out that my father, Corbin Volluz, (I am his son) would have been affected by the research and findings mentioned in this post, more than anyone else that I know; this because of the faith and testimony he has.

This being said, I want to bear my testimony of the book of Mormon and D&C because I believe in those books. Even if pieces have been left out, I know the influence and spirit I feel while reading and studying the book of Mormon.
During this time of upheaval and confusion, it is important that we who believe in God and Jesus, can recognize that the Apostasy is coming quickly. Since I believe in my religion still, (though I know that corruption has leaked in) and I see what these deceptions from LDS teachers are doing to decimate members. TRANSLATION: I feel like the True Religion is dying and becoming lost.
It seems that making our way back to heaven is now more our own responsibility than it ever has been before. We have to strengthen by seeking out our brothers and creating something new.

Brian Whitney,
I think this point is fair enough. But, why not own up to it with some honesty and integrity? Why the blame game? I find the blaming members game to be so insidious and dishonest. You can’t build people’s testimonies on spiritual experiences deriving from good feelings about a false narrative, and then be surprised when people start questioning those experiences after learning the truth.

Provocative as always, Corbin. I agree that Correlation is part of the problem — a little bit of Correlation is a good thing, but we have had way too much of it for too long, and now the bill is coming due. But the whole conspiracy angle assumes an intentional plan, which requires that leaders knew what they were hiding. In fact, most of them didn't. When it comes to LDS history, they are as correlated as any other Mormon in the pews on Sunday.

Here's from Richard Bushman at his recent AMA on Reddit: "The recent Church historians have done a great job of informing the Brethren. The gospel topics were a surprise to many. They are often charged with concealing the truth. I think the fact is the old narrative was all they knew." The leadership's collective ignorance of actual LDS history may be negligent and that negligence may have serious consequences for the Church now, but it was not fully intentional because they were hardly aware (in some cases entirely unaware) of what they were omitting from the LDS narrative. It might have been a conspiracy of ignorance, but it wasn't a conspiracy to rewrite LDS history. And Turley's assertion that each generation of historians rewrites history is something pretty much all historians would agree with.

Provocative as always, Corbin. I agree that Correlation is part of the problem — a little bit of Correlation is a good thing, but we have had way too much of it for too long, and now the bill is coming due. But the whole conspiracy angle assumes an intentional plan, which requires that leaders knew what they were hiding. In fact, most of them didn't. When it comes to LDS history, they are as correlated as any other Mormon in the pews on Sunday.

Here's from Richard Bushman at his recent AMA on Reddit: "The recent Church historians have done a great job of informing the Brethren. The gospel topics were a surprise to many. They are often charged with concealing the truth. I think the fact is the old narrative was all they knew." The leadership's collective ignorance of actual LDS history may be negligent and that negligence may have serious consequences for the Church now, but it was not fully intentional because they were hardly aware (in some cases entirely unaware) of what they were omitting from the LDS narrative. It might have been a conspiracy of ignorance, but it wasn't a conspiracy to rewrite LDS history. And Turley's assertion that each generation of historians rewrites history is something pretty much all historians would agree with.

From 1972-82, Leonard Arrington headed the Church History Department–the first trained historian to hold that position. He and the cadre of trained LDS historians (including D. Michael Quinn) were producing actual history, which tended to show other parts of the story the leaders were not crazy about being shown.

This is why Arrington’s tenure was cut short in 1982.

The Brethren did know the history, I believe.

It is why Arrington got the boot shortly after Elder Packer’s address in 1981.

The real question now is, where does this viewpoint leave you? Many who reach this point lose their faith in God as well as the Church (since the two are so highly correlated in our church-speak). If you have managed to maintain your faith in God, and in the Restoration, where do you turn? This might be too much for a comment, but I’d like to see that as a blog post. Or you could send me a message and we can chat: strengthenfeebleknees@gmail.com.

Many people are ‘awaking and arising’, as Isaiah, Lehi and so many other BOM prophets suggest. But as Nibley used to say, there’s nothing so fear-inducing as being woken up from a deep sleep, so many go back to sleep via A) apathy B) atheism or C) suppressing ideas and following the Brethren.Corbin Volluz,

Jeff, I would call atheism or agnosticism waking up, and religious thinking being asleep, or loving the dream. Many people encountering this troubling information are not being intellectually honest in their assessment, and still wrangling it according to what they WANT to believe, not what the truth requires. The entire LDS story is based on the lies and deceptions of a conman. That is a hard truth to swallow for someone still wanting to believe the beautiful lies.

To me this is proof the feeling we get of “the spirit” is a feeling that means an idea or moral is resonating with our own beliefs. It doesn’t verify truth, as the LDS church tries to claim it does. I’m sure a born again Christian feels “the spirit” in their meetings, as does a Muslim in a mosque.

With a modicum of respect: as an exmormon atheist, I submit that those returning to sleep are the ones who see the human manufacturing marks on their religion, but won’t arise enough to generalize that to the entirely human creation of religions in general. I base my worldview on the verifiable; I will follow fact and evidence wherever they lead. Nothing could be more awake and reality-based.

Epistemology and a sound understanding of human psychology and the sociological pressures the create religions are a sure-fire way to a waking state.

“But I have to balance that with the other view that the most important things in my life are not provable to others nor subject to replication in the laboratory.”
I am not sure what this includes as it is rather ambiguous; maybe intentionally so?

Does one not have a responsibility to follow the evidence in all aspects of their life? One’s actions are based on one’s belief. Your actions affect not only yourself but those around you and society in general. Therefore is it not a bit irresponsible to have beliefs that are not supported by evidence but seem to be kept mainly because of the personal comfort they provide?

Isn’t it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?

But what I am trying to convey is experiences I may have personally (and which all people have, I think) for which the individual has evidence that is not subject to replication in the laboratory or epistemologically demonstrable to another.

Yea yea Corbin. You keep at it. To me it seems as though the same thing that kept the structure you criticize in Mormon leadership place, is the same state of mind fawned over in your personal life. Don’t you think that the personal musings of the individuals that make up the organization is what actually drives, through leadership, the very thing you are criticizing? You, Corbin, and your need to throw to the supernatural what seems to be amazing, is the same thinking that lead to what your article criticize. C’mon man, you’re almost there, God, probably, most likely does not exist.

Kaj Pärkkä
on September 8, 2015 at 1:03 pm

Hi

Good narrative, story telling and arguments, again Corbin. As others in this blog I know these facts about church history since my mission many, many years ago… before the swedish movement.

I actually have a very close friend who is from Gothenburg and was very much influenced, troubled and affected by his friends leaving the church that time. It became so devastating what it did to him and his family, so I can really not say anything else to this subject that it is really sad to see when a friend is suffering from losing his family, his job, his motivation, his health because of this narrative you just described. Many other things were involved, but this “history stuff” was really the last drop that made everything break for him. It did not really affect his testamony, but everything around him and that is why this subject makes me so sad.

That was supposed to be a side note, but that is my conclusion to this post.

Beautifully written article. I agree with EVERY SINGLE WORD you’ve written. The truth is “The Church” and our “inspired” have lied to us and deliberately mislead us. Im sorry, but the genie is out if the bottle now – I see these people for who they truly are and they will NEVER regain my respect and admiration again. They have totally spent any credibility they once had!

Cloak and Dagger Mormon General
Authorities are now the Reds under the Bed, apparently.

Chill out, Corbin. Every organization on the planet takes steps to hide their warts. If you have evidence of an organized, concerted effort that includes secret meetings, unauthorized slush funds, and illegal activities of conspiring men bent on explicitly deceiving the Mormon public for some kind of overt personal financial or political gain, show some evidence.

Otherwise, let’s just acknowledge that there are generally good but sometimes fallible humans in churches with good intentions that sometimes make mistakes in how they decide to deal with the embarrassing or uncomfortable behavior of some of their predecessors. I don’t think that qualifies as a “conspiracy.” It does not make as provocative a headline but it is more true to the facts.

I certainly don’t advocate blaming the members. For evidence of that, see my post on Worlds Without End regarding the historiographical treatment of Seer Stones within officially-sanctioned church histories since 1900.

It is not the facts that Volluz presents that I disagree with: I disagree with his underlying assumptions that a cover-up was uniform, intentional, and hereditary (meaning a mandate to hide history was inherited from one successive administration to the next). I am leery of creating a “generalized other” approach to dealing with this topic, although I do recognize how tempting this is in the post-correlated era; and I do think we need to address the worldview that this attitude emerged from (I argue that it is prevalent among mid-twentieth century conservative religionists: very much reflective of a Cold War mentality).

Please don’t take this as a thinly-veiled attempt to promote my own work, but I think a reading of my take on the history of institutionally-sanctioned Mormon history may be helpful in this case. While it is not a historiographical analysis (really, its more of a bibliographic essay), I think it provides a decent chronology that demonstrates a shift over time of how the church has institutionally approached its own past. I will be writing a much more paradigmatic treatment of correlation and modernization when I get to that lesson; as well as a broader treatment of the “witch hunt” of the early 1990s (IE September Six and warning against “alternate voices”) in my lesson on globalization and contemporary issues.

I would be very interested in reading what you have come up with in this regard.

My main issue is this–the LDS Church excommunicated historians for publishing things the LDS Church didn’t like. This was over 20-years ago. D. Michael Quinn was one–especially his work on Magic and the Mormon World View.

I just don’t see how the Church can be cognizant enough of the work of earlier historians to excommunicate them, and yet expect us to believe they are only now finding out about these things.

It’s like Claude Rains in “Casablanca” saying, “I am shocked, shocked, to find out there is gambling going on here!”

To me, the beauty of the LDS church has been the “banner of truth”. When all the world is a pack of liars, I believed I could always find refuge with my church. Generally this has been true on a local level. At this point, though, I have no trust in any leader in SLC, especially after the “we don’t apologize” statement by Oakes.

To accept Bushman's explanation would require us to see church leaders as unquestioning robots. President Monson would have to be a general authority for 50 yet never ask himself relevant questions like: did Joseph have more than one wife? Can women pray in general conference? Did the church ever say it was doctrine for blacks not to have the priesthood? How was the Book of Mormon translated? Leaders act like they never even thought of these issues until someone else brought them up recently, when in reality the issues have been around for decades and decades. The truth is that the church is being forced to act because of more people speaking up and more information being available to the members.

This is a bit overblown. I’m not a scholar of LDS church history, though I’ve done a fair amount of reading over the years, and there was little, if any, I learned from the essays posted on the Church website. The fact that I picked up as much as I did through casual reading, albeit in publications that did not go through correlation, negates the premise that there was a conspiracy of silence.

The fact that all the warts and scars in Church history are not taught in Seminary or Sunday School is similar to the charge that the missionaries are hiding something because they don’t quote all eight versions of the first vision. Of course they don’t! Why confuse a simple message. (I was given 1970 Ensign containing the article discussing the various versions while on my mission and still have it in a file somewhere. At no time, then or since, did I feel that full disclosure demanded that I cite multiple accounts.)

What is missing in the write up is an honest appraisal of intent, not just of those “suppressing” information but of classes such as seminary and of the Church itself.

I’ll use mathematics as an example. No one expects junior high kids to understand advanced algebra while still struggling with long division. Similarly, no one should expect long discussions of President Andrew Jackson’s policies, the banking panic of 1837, and their affect on the Kirtland Safety Anti-Banking Society while discussing the Kirtland period with a bunch of ninth graders at six in the morning. The purpose of seminary is to give teens a brief survey of early Church history and the Doctrine and Covenants. The iterations of Ohio banking laws are no more discussed than every verse in the D&C.

This same difficulty extends to classes in Sunday School or Priesthood/Relief Society. Of course now the teacher doesn’t necessarily know who is figuratively still in grade school in the gospel and who has their gospel Ph.d. The intent of correlation, I believe, is to teach lessons that don’t leave the new learners in the dust. The restriction on outside material similarly is to keep Ph.d teachers from over whelming figurative grade school students.

Information is not being suppressed because it is bad as much as it is not discussed because it may do more harm than good. The negative reaction of some suggests that this was a realistic concern. The intent of the Church is to bring people to God and facilitate their return to Him at the end of their lives, when ever that is. Lessons on The Kirtland Safety Society or John C. Bennet’s “Spiritual Wifery” do nothing to further that goal. Teaching such information, true or not, when someone isn’t even sure what a testimony is may have just the opposite effect.

Those interested in such things can and will find the information.

My mission president was one church history scholar who did not publish an article at the request of some leader in the church. He freely shared what he found with me. It’s been forty years and I’ve never seen the information anywhere else. While interesting, the information would not help one person in their quest to return to the Father. There was, however, a small risk of harm, not to the Church, but to some unknown member or investigator. It was not a risk he was willing to take.

The argument can be made that the Church was clumsy in their efforts to protect the flock. However, to ascribe sinister intent is taking the argument a bit too far. I’m sure the Church would be a perfect organization if people weren’t involved but that sort of misses the whole point. Obviously, I’m giving it the benefit of the doubt.

You fall back on the old canard of blaming new members in the Church for the refusal to teach any of the troubling aspects.

You also tacitly blame members who do not know for doing the outside research you did. Or for not having a mission president willing to share his research. ;^)

By the time a Mormon youth has graduated high school, he or she has attended enough Church classes and meetings to have earned a doctorate in the subject at a major university. And yet they know very little. Why is that?

Why is it that in the LDS Church, we never graduate from Primary?

Why are the High Priests learning the same thing as the youth?

There is a reason for this, and it involves Church leaders at the highest levels, the Correlated curricula, and an unwillingness to actually teach the members, by which I mean having them learn anything they haven’t already heard 100 times before.

I did not say information was suppressed through a sinister intent. I believe the intent was quite good.

But that is how these things go. Eventually they blow up, and the devastation at the end is worse than dealing with things in real time.

The cover-up is always worse than the underlying crime.

Regardless of the motivation.

Nixon had good motivations for covering up the Watergate break-in, no doubt.

I don't think our leaders are unquestioning robots. I think they felt members couldn't handle the whole truth, so they didn't share it. It's a type of patriarchal control of information. It was a mistake. It's an example of good intentions with a bad result. I wish they would own up to some of it so we could be reassured it won't happen again.

“there can be no question that the LDS Church has been involved in promoting and carrying out a conspiracy to suppress the truth from its members”.

You have made an accusation. It is an accusation without nuance. It is a serious accusation of dishonesty. It is not simply an observation of error, but an accusation of active harm orchestrated by (by implication) an entire body of LDS church leaders, with Elder Packer as a specific scapegoat. I do question it. You don’t weigh competing needs or desires of a broad cross section of the LDS church or humanity. You don’t suggest that some church leaders may feel differently about these topics. You don’t identify that they may consider their primary goal that of bringing people to Christ, and consequently they may identify (correctly or not) various historical issues as distractions given the very limited time and means they have to work on their primary goal. You don’t make allowances for their limitations in understanding history. You have no knowledge of actions they may have taken less publicly to promote better knowledge of our history.

You fight the admittedly wrong blame game by blaming. You appear to be ranting on one of the difficulties faced by the LDS church rather than inviting dialogue or progress. If I have mischaracterized your post, I will be glad. If your intent is simply a defense of those who have been blamed, I can sympathize, but that is not the affect of what you have written. I find this approach to people distasteful.

I share this not so much because I want or expect you to change or retract anything, but because I don’t wish your views to appear to represent the collection of permabloggers at Rational Faiths. Each of us is encouraged to express our personal views within quite broad limits. I value that despite disagreeing with both tone and content in this post. I’ve had more than my say, so I’ll leave it alone now.

I always enjoy hearing what you have to say, Jonathan, and I appreciate your comments.

I think it would be a mistake to consider Elder Packer a lone wolf (or lone scapegoat).

Last month Michael Otterson mocked the idea of apostles working independently of each other. (It is in the talk I linked in the blog.)

I suggest the same attitude would apply to Elder Packer in 1981.

He was not working on his own authority.

He had the support of others in the leadership. Maybe not everybody, but enough to shut down the Leonard Arrington Camelot years in the Church history department the year after he gave this address.

Leonard Arrington, the first trained historian to be put in charge of the Church History Department, had a tenure from 1972-1982.

It was the history he was producing to which Elder Packer (and others) objected.

But don’t forget his important work from 1982-1989 as director of the Joseph Fielding Smith Institute, which continued after his retirement (not forced) under the direction of Ron Esplin and then Jill Mulvay Derr before the LDS Church History Department was re-opened in 2001 with the Joseph Smith Papers.

If there's never been a conspiracy to hide the truth, then the appeal to ignorance among the leaders about pivotal points of Church history raises the question about how inspired and informed they really are. However, multiple instances in Church history require the acceptance of Church member's and leaders' willingness to "lie for the Lord" (Joseph Smith's polygamy, Brigham Young's supposed transfiguration, deceitful dealings re: polygamy, Jeffrey R. Holland's claim to hold "the very book" that Hyrum had in his 2009 Conference Address, etc.). If it were just a conspiracy of ignorance, then humble men ought to have admitted their mistake by now.

More likely, it's a conspiracy of men who think they're doing God's will but aren't. Taken to the next level, this is the kind of thing that secret combinations are made of.

From Joseph Fielding Smith’s editorial work on “The Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith” to the intentional hiding by the Church that Brigham Young taught the Adam-God Doctrine. (Both of which I have posted about in earlier blogs.)

I think Elder Holland let on to knowing a lot more than he wanted to regarding Church history in that PBS interview done in his office a few years back . . .

What does “inspiration” have to do with being a student of history? I wouldn’t expect any general authority to use “inspiration” to fix mechanical issues on my car, why do we assume that ordination to a high ecclesiastical office automatically begets a scholarly understanding and study of church history? They didn’t get called into those positions because they were particularly knowledgable or well-read in church history or even theology. I think it’s arguable that they were called because they had proven themselves to be effective and loyal administrators over decades of service within the church.

Magic and the Worldview was an interesting case, as it was originally sought after as a contextualized response to the Salamander Letter before it was found to be fraudulent. What happened to him after is a tragedy and shame on church leaders who were behind it. I do believe that the church owes Dr. Quinn a public apology; likewise Maxine Hanks and Lavina Anderson. This is a dark, Orwelian period in our history.

But it’s never a one-sided story, right? I often joke that the difference between a historian and a lawyer is that historians will admit circumstantial evidence; however, I also think that a difference is that the lawyerly mind seeks for a verdict to the case based on the arguments presented (forgive me if I am overly-generalizing) while historians don’t believe in verdicts: our job, generally, is to overly-complicate seemingly simple matters — there’s always more to the story.

This is an important topic, but at this point this juror is not persuaded to convict without weighing the arguments of the defense council.

Many thought that dark, Orwellian period in our history was a thing of the past. But it seems to be rising like the Phoenix from the ashes . . . the ashes of more recent excommunicants.

From my point of view, the new essays are a step in the right direction, but they still continue the pattern of covering up important information. They seem designed to tell only as much as the Church thinks many members already know. And no more.

For example, as I blogged about in December of 2013, the essay regarding Race and the Priesthood went to great lengths to find a personal letter from Joseph Fielding Smith to support the proposition that the premortal unworthiness of blacks was not a Church doctrine . . . while obviously overlooking the 1949 First Presidency Statement that said it was.

Why is the “milk before meat” principle pushed when it is claimed that there is a deity that witnesses to the truth? Shouldn’t any amount of truth be disclosed without fear since the Holy Ghost would witness to them?

There's got to be a better way than this of discussing the fact that the LDS Church has not prominently taught some parts of its history. This article contains a fair amount of hyperbole and invective and probably should not have been published on a blog named "Rational Faiths". Let's talk about this topic, but not with the claws of hate and anger.

That is correct, but he was immediately appointed as the director of the Joseph Smith Fielding Institute at BYU and retained that position for another seven years. Yes, unfortunately, there was a restriction placed on the collections. Of course, this is far from unusual for a private institution, but I think it led to an unnecessary rift between the church and independent scholars that only really starting to thaw within the past ten years.

One big move was within the past year when the Council of Fifty records were released from the First Presidency Vault. Since then, virtually all holdings from the First Presidency vault have been turned over to the archives. This is a positive step that shows willingness on behalf of the brethren (even at gunpoint, some may argue) to let the records be examined.

Qualifier: the C50 minutes are not open to the general public; the Joseph Smith Papers team has first rights for publication–queue conspiracy theories on what they will inevitably leave out to save the church’s reputation (I disagree with this assumption, unsurprisingly).

We better get 100% of the council of fifty minutes published in 2016 not a 50% highly sanitized version. Continually the JSP is lauded as putting all the primary documents out there warts and all for analysis, but I am worried that after so many years of keeping these under lock and key we may not get it all in the end.

That is what is happening now. The brethren are better educated about church history than ever, mostly thanks to the success of the Joseph Smith Papers and revitalization of the Church History Department.

I vehemently disagree that the recent excommunications can in any way be related to the September Six. These are not scholars being excommunicated, they are public personalities: bloggers, podcasters, activist organizers. I am not suggesting that I support their excommunication, but to draw an inference is, using Lawyer-speak, circumstantial.

Corbin Volluz,
“I do think the timing is significant, however. I believe even Mike Quinn and Richard Bushman agree that the cause is the relative ease of accessing information by the Internet.”

I think that’s without question. Elder Snow (the current Church Historian) said as much himself in a video that introduced the Gospel Topics essays (that’s a very good video, btw).

The Internet changed everything. It’s unfortunate that the Church is now in reaction mode; but, frankly, I don’t really care what it takes for the Church to recognize that their past model of dealing with its past is unsustainable. Here is how I put it on my website (sorry for another plug):

“[T]he emergence of the Information Age and proliferation of social media has compelled the relatively young religion to further examine its historical narrative. Past approaches of downplaying or ignoring complex topics in official church materials has become unsustainable; and current institutional initiatives to advance a more transparent and historically-sound image of its past will undoubtedly change the way future generations relate to their religious identity.” (Lesson 10 – Conclusion)

That is what is happening now. The brethren are better educated about church history than ever, mostly thanks to the success of the Joseph Smith Papers and revitalization of the Church History Department.

I can see why you come to the conclusions you do. But I see the brethren more favorably. I think they do the best they can. They're in jam. And they might not know exactly the way out, or how exactly God wants them to get out of the jam. You have to admit the essays are a good start. I think moving from a literal view to a metaphorical view of scripture, church history and doctrine is the way out of the jam. see http://www.churchistrue.com for more detail. But it's going to take time. This church is worth giving our best effort to the cause.

Frankly I was a bit surprised with the force of Bushman's comments on the lack of knowledge the brethren had on some of these issues. But I trust Bushman. I may not agree with all of his interpretation, but I don't think he would lie about a fact.

Bottom line is that members were lied to and even now new potential members are being lied to by the missionary’s. If this was heard before a court of law the first presidency would be cited and damages would be addressed and perhaps even thrown in jail. But in fact they continue to lie. Insidious and dishonest charlatan’s all of them.

What? What God wants them to do? How about start by being “HONEST” – Let me quote from the lds own website on honesty:
Lying is intentionally deceiving others. Bearing false witness is one form of lying. There are many other forms of lying. When we speak untruths, we are guilty of lying. We can also intentionally deceive others by a gesture or a look, by silence, or by telling only part of the truth. Whenever we lead people in any way to believe something that is not true, we are not being honest.

I think it highly likely, inasmuch as he seemed to have at his fingertips a great deal of information about John with which the SP appeared unfamiliar.

These suspicions are buttressed by the fact it is now widely known Elder Packer was manipulating at least one of the September 6 excommunications from behind the scenes.

And the fact Mike Quinn’s SP was directed by a GA to discipline Quinn, and the same GA admonished the SP he was to lie to Quinn and tell him it was the SP’s own idea–that it did NOT come from higher up.

A history of deception like this tends to make one question recent denials by the Church PR department that top leaders have no involvement in current disciplinary actions.

There is only one way out. Tell the truth. No matter what. That is what the leaders of this church taught me for the 56 years I was a member. Time for them to practice what they preach. Too late for me though, I'm out.

Otterson also made a very specific comment about the FP and Q12 not being involved in or affecting the outcome of Disciplinary Councils. His written (and likely approved) comment was completely false. Technically true because they assign the contact with local leaders to lower ranking GA’s, but still a lie because they absolutely DO affect and initiate those councils (Dehlin, Kelly, Waterman, Snuffer and as far back as the great Quinn). Those verifiable untruths from Otterson put Corbin’s assertion of conspiracy into a similar light. It literally hurts to type these words, and that’s the worst part.

This is the cleanest, best explanation of the problem I have read. This happened to me. All the questions I asked were answered with “Those are anti-mormon lies”. Now, the Church even admits these “lies” are truth.

Frank, don't confuse hate and anger, with hurt, sorrow, betrayel, and confusion as well as a number of other emotions tied into those bullet point few I mention.

I devoted 28years of my life to this church, and there is a violation of trust that I have not recovered from. I served with you in the guard, so we both know that we are honorable men with a heart for serving our fellow men. Anger was not programed into me, but it has become my default. You know I deal with PTSD, and in a time in my life when I should have my faith as the solid anchor to sustain me in this deep valley in my life, I discover my whole structure of faith was based on a deception.

When people accuse me of "whalin on and on about the church, this and that…" as all my friends and family like to say, It is not coming from a place of hate and anger, it is coming from a deep moral wound that was caused by the lies and deception that came from people we've been taught and programed to revere as near perfect!

I agree with you on working to use language that will be productive to reaching a peace, and I am guilty of, as well as many former members of having razor sharp claws to attack, but try to remember that our "claws" they've been groomed that way from the rejection and shunning that we experienced from our former community(sarcasm font)

I do know for me personally I am devoting the rest of this year and all of next year on forgiving, but its going to be hard to forgive when these "truth bombs" come out, its like the reset button of hurt gets pushed.

This gets into another instance of how the Church blames others for its own actions.

The Church demands complete sacrifice and obedience from its members. The Church hides its history. The member finds out, after decades of sacrifice. The member is hurt and angry. The member expresses that hurt and anger and leaves.

The organization would clearly fail their own temple recommend interview: "Are you honest in your dealings with your fellowmen?" The sting of betrayal is very painful after years of trusting them, believing they were honest, then realizing the hundreds, and even thousands of facts which prove the leaders of that organization have never told the entire story, they have always carefully withheld and distorted the truth.

Even today, when valid, sincere questions arise, instead of providing honest answers, the leaders of the organization make every effort to protect the organization with carefully crafted responses intended to keep their followers on an journey void of total honesty.

The enormous irony is almost humorous when one considers why these fifteen men who claim to be apostles, prophets, seers, and revelators will never apologize for the many, many misdeeds committed by the organization. Regardless of the millions who claim these men are “godly,” they are simply dishonest, not worthy of respect and their behavior proves with zero doubt they can not be trusted.

I agree, tell the truth, apologize profusely, and you might be surprised who sticks around. Most members want to stay. They just can’t do it with current hostilities in place: people are so forgiving. We’re just waiting it out.

I know I’m chiming in to something a couple of years old, but I just must get this out.
When I’ve asked members why the Church never issued an official apology from the pulpit for the mistake of the priesthood/temple ban on blacks, what I’ve gotten is, ‘We have many black members now who are quite happy and looking forward, not backwards’, you should do the same.
I tell them that it’s not really about how black members feel today or even felt yesterday (before 1978) but simply that Sunday School lessons have taught us that when we make mistakes that deny or hurt others, we should apologize. I have waited in vain for many years, to see my Church do the right thing and set the example but it seems that leadership determined a long time ago that it is better to let time work its memory fade, rather than show fallibility.

Check this out look at Jacob 1:15 and Jacob 2:24 in the book of Mormon and look at d&c 132:39 according to these passages god created abominations .I don’t think the leaders will apologize about polygamy.these my views

not hate or anger. Deep, deep sorrow. I loved my LDS church, I was a member for many years, held many different positions, loved the members. However my career taught me how to carry out research and what constitues poor research…and being told I couldn't look back into church archives for research for my lessons caused me to smell a rat. Then I was told that I was at fault for having questions about certain directives….. things that now the church is saying did happen, I was told off for looking into and asking questions. My faith and testimony were called into question. I left the church because it lied to me. Not my fellow ward members, but the people I was asked to sustain at general ward conference and they knew I was being made to live a lie. In good conscience I couldn't do it. Lying is wrong. This isn't said with anger or hate, finding these things out and being told I was in the wrong broke me in ways it'd be hard to understand.

More interesting to me than the blog post itself, which is Corbin’s typical provocative style peppered with pointed insights and illustrated with equally pointed images, is the conversation between Jonathan, Brian, and Corbin in the comment section. There’s no real dispute over the facts of the case Corbin has laid out. We can argue over intent. We can argue over the breadth and depth of the whitewashing.

What we can’t argue over is that it happened and that members, who were presented an “it’s all true or it’s all a fraud” dischotomy from the highest levels of church leadership, are being hurt by the institution they trusted and to which they committed their lives. *This is NOT okay.*

Furthermore, to blame the victim after the betrayal has occurred is clearly gaslighting.

Institutionally, we need to stand up, grow a pair, own what has happened and make restitution insofar as we are able. There’s a word for this. Repentance. And it’s often followed by an even more beautiful word. Reconciliation.

I agree with Corbin’s conclusion. The only way out of this situation is for the church to practice what the church preaches.

Being honest is not a difficulty to be faced. Rather, as the saying goes, it is the best policy. The church has apparently decided for some time now to embrace nuance rather than abject honesty. I question that course, as does Corbin seemingly, and many others. I don’t equate church leaders with God, and I do not surrender my own reasoning on the alter of the church.

Ordinarily I’d agree but the story of Joseph Fielding Smith locking Joseph Smith’s handwritten first vision account away from public view does tend to steer one’s thoughts in a certain direction.

Human nature, leaders aren’t exempt from it. They can purposely cover up the truth like the best of us.

This calls to mind Brent Metcalfe’s account of how Mark Hofmann sold a forged letter to the Church back in the 1980’s. If memory serves, it was not the Salamander letter, but one equally as controversial and potentially damaging.

The deal was the Church would not buy it directly from Hofmann. Instead, Gordon B. Hinckley bought the letter and then donated it to the Church, which immediately sequestered it.

The letter would probably remain hidden to this day except that Hofmann sent a copy of the letter to the press (I believe the Los Angeles Times).

A reporter called the LDS Church and asked if they had in fact purchased this letter from Hofmann. The answer was no. Because technically, that was true. The Church received it from Gordon B. Hinckley who purchased it from Hofmann.

The reporter then advised that he was going to be running with a copy of the letter in an upcoming issue of the Times.

Brent Metcalfe relates how the Church Office Building then went into Defcon 1 in a mad scramble to try to figure out how they could “release” the letter publicly before the Times printed the story.

Frank Staheli write: "This article … probably should not have been published on a blog named "Rational Faiths"."

"Rational Faiths" is an oxymoron. Faith is a commitment to belief in something even in the absence of evidence, or in the face of contrary evidence. An honest and rational person cannot have faith, because his/her beliefs are always contingent on the evidence.

I believe the reason the Church has hidden her history is because her claims to power and authority do not withstand scrutiny, being entirely at variance with themselves.

There is no way out for her if she is to continue to exist. She must continue the lies. And because they are lies, they will change shape and size.

If it were normal human beings, contradicting oneself would be understood as a sign of lying. But somehow, when the Church does it, it is seen as virtuous, not vicious, by many (as can be seen in the comments here). It’s like making excuses for an abusive spouse or parent. “Oh, she’s not usually like this.” But she is, and she lies without conscience because, well, for the good of all, she just simply must be right. And she cannot change that without ceasing to exist. And she’ll punish you for treason (she calls it “apostasy”) if you tell the truth, because, as Orwell says, “truth is treason in the empire of lies.” “The truth melts her magic,” as Schmendrick says.

See Nibley’s “The Way of the Church” in Mormonism and Early Christianity. The patterns are clear.

It’s probably not coincidental that Nibley’s works are not searchable with Google, even using the Maxwell Institute’s internal customized Google search app, just as D&C 77 is never displayed using the Church’s internal scripture web search.

I do think, however, that there is a way out of this mess for the Church other than to continue the deception.

That way is to just tell the truth.

Here is how it might go:

“For many decades, Church leaders have in some instances suppressed damaging information from the members. This was done with the best of intentions. The damaging information could have destroyed the faith of some members, and that was considered too high a price to pay. We now realize that was wrong. No matter what the cost, we are obligated as a Church and as disciples of Jesus to be completely honest and transparent. We will do what is right, and let the consequence follow. We apologize deeply for our past transgressions in this regard, and hope you will forgive us. We pledge to you complete transparency in the future, and trust you will find out actions will demonstrate our pledge is real.”

Drew and Gen: I understand that there is sorrow, but I don't understand why, so that's probably why it comes across to me as anger. I respect that, and I'm trying to understand the "why" better. Suffice it to say, I agree with you in concept that these things should have been talked about more regularly.

My perspective probably comes because, as an 18-year-old many years ago, I needed to know whether I felt comfortable serving an LDS mission. As part of my research, I solicited anti-Mormon material. Some of the information that now causes you hurt, was presented to me in that forum–albeit in a very exaggerated way. I dealt with the exaggerations and moved on–on to what turned out to be a very unique experience that convinced me of the truthfulness of the Church of Jesus Christ and His gospel.

I also had a very good seminary teacher who taught us about seer stones, polygamy, and several of the other controversial issues that have been controversial for quite some time. Perhaps those are the reasons that I don't feel the same angst/sorrow that you both feel.

So after all the upheaval and greater transparency here’s what we will still find as “the truth” which, as the post correctly says, is “out there”:

•The Father “commandeth all men, everywhere, to repent and believe in me” (meaning Christ)
•The Father and Son appeared to Joseph Smith
•Moroni, a messenger sent from the presence of God, appeared to Joseph Smith
•The Book of Mormon was translated by the gift and power of God and is scripture. Nephi and Moroni have the same historical facticity as George Washington.
•John the Baptist laid his physical hands on Joseph Smith’s head and conferred upon him the Priesthood of Aaron. Because of this, the Church is the sole custodian of valid baptisms on planet Earth, a baptism that every accountable soul must undergo to fully follow Christ, whether they accept it here in mortality or accept it vicariously in the Spirit World.
•Peter, James and John laid their physical hands on Joseph Smith and conferred upon him the Holy Priesthood after the Order of the Son of God
•The temple ordinances performed vicariously have a welcomed and actual impact on the salvation of those currently in the Spirit World
•The Holy Ghost continues to testify of the truthfulness of the message offered by our missionaries
•There is an actual personage named Satan who ever seeks to destroy faith in Christ and in his Church

All these truths and many others have been and still are available to us. Church leaders are not lying about any of them. Yet, none of them will ever be “proved” to the satisfaction of sceptics during mortality. Not a one. We will not have the gold plates here in mortality, or the missing papyri bought in Kirkland, nor will we discover a photo of either Priesthood restoration or converse with the angel with a drawn sword. Where does that leave us? Up the river? Is the Holy Ghost in thrall to the current, imperfect state of mortal scholarship?

I welcome greater transparency. Bring it on. Will it invalidate any of the above assertions? No. Is it the case that because there have hitherto been no head-in-hat pictures, the Book of Mormon was not translated by the power of God and is not scripture? Has the Church been “suppressing” the fact that Peter, James and John did NOT lay their hands on Joseph? Which of the Articles of Faith are known to be false by our Church leaders? Is there, in fact, no connection whatsoever between the temple and the Spirit World?

Anti-Mormon literature has an agenda: Destroy the Church. Get as many as possible to leave it. It’s not a neutral observer. It relentlessly discredits the Church by showing it, its leaders and its doctrines in the worst possible light. It does not weigh its sources biases or place them in an honest context. It is not a simple, objective narrative of the course of the Church. It’s like wading through a swamp. You think the Church’s narrative is tendentious but that of its enemies is not? Anti-Mormon literature stresses as forcibly as possible that everything about Joseph Smith is false – no First Vision, no Moroni, no gold plates, no divine translation, no divinely conferred Priesthood, no temple ordinances recognized by heaven – all of it pure hooey. Is this the “truth” that anti-Mormon literature has got right and the Church has wrong and is covering up?

A brief comment here on one stumbling block, and one that frankly surprises me: the seer stone. I knew Joseph had one (or more) back in high school (1970’s – really pre-internet. Youth today can have no conception of those medieval times). There was an article in Dialogue in the early 1980’s about its use – loads of information. I am unaware that any church leader has flat out denied the existence of a seer stone or has made a positive statement that it was not/could not have been used in the translation. I think they just stayed silent about it. Joseph Smith used both the Urim and Thummim, and the seer stone in translating. When he first got the plates he followed (it seems to me) a perfectly reasonable course:

“I commenced copying the characters off the plates. I copied a considerable number of them, and by means of the Urim and Thummim, I translated some of them, which I did between the time I arrived at the house of my wife’s father, in the month of December, and the February following.” (JS-H 1:62.)

Later, he used the seer stone. So what? When did he switch? We don’t know. Emma said the plates were often just lying on the table covered with a linen cloth. Isn’t this common knowledge? Hasn’t it found its way into numerous books and articles? To hold up pictures used to illustrate the translation as “lies” from Church leaders seems to me a pretty weak argument for duplicity.

Jesus Christ is still the head of this Church. There is no parallel restoration somewhere else. This is the Church that will one day build the New Jerusalem. The Church is not a house of cards. Joseph Smith died a faithful servant of God. Keep things in perspective. I do not discount problems with the handling of church history. I offer this as a corrective to the image of Church headquarters as the Kremlin.

•John the Baptist laid his physical hands on Joseph Smith’s head and conferred upon him the Priesthood of Aaron. Because of this, the Church is the sole custodian of valid baptisms on planet Earth, a baptism that every accountable soul must undergo to fully follow Christ, whether they accept it here in mortality or accept it vicariously in the Spirit World.

I am not sure, but I think the scribes and Pharisees said much the same about John, himself – and they rejected his baptism. After all, they could trace their authority to baptize to Aaron. I call this “the divine cooties” theory of authority. Authority is held to be simply a game of tag – literally. Your claim – Joseph was ordained by John, therefore everyone must submit to US, or else! – seems to be a non-sequitur, missing quite a few steps which are exactly the kinds of things at issue in the examination of Church history.

•The temple ordinances performed vicariously have a welcomed and actual impact on the salvation of those currently in the Spirit World

Do they?

•The Holy Ghost continues to testify of the truthfulness of the message offered by our missionaries

Does it?

•There is an actual personage named Satan who ever seeks to destroy faith in Christ and in his Church

Does he? Do lies build faith in Christ and his Church, or do they break faith in Christ and his Church? If the Church lies, and if lies break faith in Christ and his Church, then does it not stand to reason this personage named Satan has got a different relationship with the Church than what you are presenting? Can a lying Church be being led by a God who cannot lie? Or is it more likely to be being led by a god who can, indeed, lie?

And if the Church is going to one day build Jerusalem, how do you account for D&C 84, and JST Matthew 21?

I do think, however, that there is a way out of this mess for the Church other than to continue the deception.

That way is to just tell the truth.

Here is how it might go:

“For many decades, Church leaders have in some instances suppressed damaging information from the members.This was done with the best of intentions.The damaging information could have destroyed the faith of some members, and that was considered too high a price to pay.We now realize that was wrong.No matter what the cost, we are obligated as a Church and as disciples of Jesus to be completely honest and transparent.We will do what is right, and let the consequence follow.We apologize deeply for our past transgressions in this regard, and hope you will forgive us.We pledge to you complete transparency in the future, and trust you will find out actions will demonstrate our pledge is real.”

Corbin,

The lies go to the heart of her claims to power and authority. If she has neither, she is merely just another apostate Church, ending her justification for existing.

That’s precisely what’s always been at issue. If she’s not infallible, if she’s lying about the scope and nature of her priesthood, if she cannot open nor seal the heavens – meaning heaven doesn’t recognize her priesthood nor her rites – then the truth destroys her craft. Would you willingly belong to a Church which admits such things? Do you think any Church would willingly admit such things?

Do you have other sources advocating members to avoid controversial or “anti-mormon” literature? The Marvin J. Ashton talk only pointed out that one particular pamphlet contained “malicious and ridiculous statements”. Something that could be true. He never discusses anti-mormon literature in the broad sense of the genre. His advice to ignore the pamphlet was in the spirit of avoid arguing with idiots, and only resolve disagreements civilly. “It behooves all of us to be in the position to involve ourselves in factual discussions and meaningful study, but never in bitter arguments.” This is good advice.

I believe you are right to suggest that we have been taught to avoid all critical literature, but you only provide Ashton’s talk as a single point of insufficient evidence. There must be better evidence to support the claim.

(1) My lengthy comments were to place the problems with handling church history in a larger context where truth remains.

(2) The “unfalsifiable” nature of the faith’s core faith claims is a little trickier. For one thing, I may feel they are verified to me in a manner that is not transferable to another. I believe you make a similar distinction in a reply earlier in this post.

Second, they are not “completely” unfalsifiable. I expect every one of them to be verified after death. Those for whom handling the plates and conversing with Nephi and Moroni are the only acceptable proof will get that opportunity – at the Day of Judgment (2 Nephi 33:11; Ether 5:6; Moroni 10:34 – the last verse in the volume.) At that time, if they wish to convince Nephi and Moroni that they, Nephi and Moroni, do not exist, they will be free to do so. Good luck with that.

Until then, on this side of the veil where we walk by faith — in fact are required to walk by faith — there is the Holy Ghost. That tides me over, if you will, for now. My faith is such that the questions I don’t have answers for, and there are plenty of them, will have answers and I will get those answers and they will be satisfying answers.

Statement on Symposia
The Council of the First Presidency and the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles has issued the following statement:

“Recent symposia sponsored and attended by some members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints have included some presentations relating to the House of the Lord, the holy temples, that are offensive. We deplore the bad taste and insensitivity of these public discussions of things we hold sacred. We are especially saddened at the participation of our own members, especially those who hold Church or other positions that give them stature among Latter-day Saints and who have allowed their stature to be used to promote such presentations.

“We have a different concern about some of the other topics at these symposia. Some of the presentations by persons whom we believe to be faithful members of the Church have included matters that were seized upon and publicized in such a way as to injure the Church or its members or to jeopardize the effectiveness or safety of our missionaries. We appreciate the search for knowledge and the discussion of gospel subjects. However, we believe that Latter-day Saints who are committed to the mission of their church and the well-being of their fellow members will strive to be sensitive to those matters that are more appropriate for private conferring and correction than for public debate. Jesus taught that when a person has trespassed against us, we should ‘go and tell him his fault between thee and him alone,’ and if he will ‘neglect to hear’ this private communication we should ‘tell it unto the church’ (Matt. 18:15, 17). Modern revelation tells us that this last step ‘shall be done in a meeting, and that not before the world’ (D&C 42:89). There are times when public discussion of sacred or personal matters is inappropriate.

“Some of our faithful members have doubtless participated in these symposia because they were invited to state or to defend the Church’s position on a particular topic. There are times when it is better to have the Church without representation than to have implications of Church participation used to promote a program that contains some (though admittedly not all) presentations that result in ridiculing sacred things or injuring The Church of Jesus Christ, detracting from its mission, or jeopardizing the well-being of its members.”

No, the Holy Ghost has not. But whatever they have or haven’t done, this has not prevented the Holy Ghost from testifying to me that the Gospel and Priesthood restored to Joseph Smith is from God and that both continue to reside with the Church.

Ultimately, I think that is the question. Are we really so emotionally attached to something that we are willing to accept abuse, lies, or mistreatment? It certainly bears a lot of emotional weight no doubt, with questions or ideas about eternity and the hope of life after death.

And if the Holy Ghost is all we have to go on (besides other unfalsifiable claims, which don’t hold much weight in the realm of “truth”) it doesn’t help that it gives conflicting witness to different people on subjects.

I came to the point in my membership in the Church where I had to decide that extraordinary demands upon me did not match the narrative I had been given. It is patronizing in the worst way, in my opinion, to treat me as if I might not be able to handle the truth… Oh wait, I couldn’t handle the truth. I couldn’t handle it because I realized that they felt the were somehow above their own laws. To me, that became the defining moment of when I decided it wasn’t what it claimed to be.

I cannot tell you how relieved that insight made me. Their hold upon me was broken and I knew that I was no longer in their power. I left church this past May. It has been hard in many ways. However, I feel I am standing up for what is right and letting the Church know it shouldn’t treat people this way. I voted with my feet.

Articles like this drive me crazy . The information is so misconstrued and contrived. The talk given by Packer did not say what this guy said it did. Read it. He was totally misquoted or quotes were taken out of context to prove the author's disaffected LDS viewpoint. Packer repeatedly inferred that history is not meant to be "suppressed" or "covered up" but presented at the proper time to prepared learners, that are aided by the Spirit. Having gone through several years of extreme doubt and disaffection with the Church I can now very clearly see both sides.

Corbin Volluz, As I read this it seems like there are some practical solutions. First the church should spend less time focusing on humanitarian work and programs where teaching the principles that can lead us to Christ and creating a scaffolding to practice their application takes up so much of their time. They should just shift their focus on staffing a committee to actually go back in time so they can round up all the mortals the Lord had to work with who didn’t agree on what should be done with the knowledge they had then. They could just change the past so that all records include “the rest of the story.”

Since it is pretty clear to many on this website that we now have “the rest of the story” the Lord should throw out the current leaders because they have also proven to be mere mortals, each with weaknesses and shortcomings clearly traceable to the times they live in, their opportunities for learning, cultural upbringings and the weaknesses of the homes they were raised in.

The Lord could save his church from a lot of disentions and a lot of problems if God would just stop staffing his church with people like us.

He could produce a super race that had minds like computers and bionics and who were not influenced by fatigue or any of the foibles of man to run His church. Less people would be hurt and less people would suffer the secondary emotion of anger that follows hurt.

Of course we would no longer have to do our own thinking or go over our church leader’s heads which would result in a personal relationship of our own with God because we could trust mortal men completely.

No more of this limited understanding and even limited character development of church leaders to have to reconcile. The tolerance for those leaders that could help us to learn to tolerate and love each other would be greatly reduced since we could totally trust men to do our thinking for us and always give us advice that will serve us and make our lives safer and easier, but hey maybe it would be worth it to some.

Either God knows something we don’t or we are all smart enough to judge everything we encounter by relying on the wisdom of man alone which includes our limited understanding.

I almost left the church 40 years ago over the Adam God theory. I was so sincere and had such a close relationship with God at the time. He lead me to the rest of the story on that one. In less than one week He got me to ask questions that spoke to the core of my values.

He showed me weaknesses in people much older than I was. People who I had trusted to be more knowledgable than me based mostly on my assumptions from their ages, positions held in the church and personal likeability. He showed me the conclusions I would have come to if I had done the research without His divine timing, guidance and personal help.

I did not even know the person God finally lead me to who showed me the weaknesses of my own research methods. She had the education to understand how to properly research my questions. She had run into the same claims. She showed me research she had done years earlier. I was amazed at what I would have missed. She explained how she located and copied the factual, even date stamped, historical records that debunked not only the claim that Brigham Young taught that but her records put every single issue I had to rest that was found published anywhere in anti mormon literature back in 1975.

She had a copy of a letter to Mark E. Peterson in answer to his concern over the Millenial Star wishing to publish this written record of his (alleged) teaching that Adam was God.

All of her research results were dated and recorded long before the “Antis” exposed the Adam God Theory. I saw the copy of the original signed and dated response that was written by Brigham Young in own handwriting, back in the 1800’s. He explained how those stories started. He even voluntarily named seven other discourses that he said contained such gross errors from when they were scribed that they should be thrown out and considered useless because of the quantity of false doctrine contained in them.

I looked at all the anti moromn literature I had at the time. Every single issue cited one of those discourses as the proof ofalse doctrines that the ons used to preach.

I saw court afidavits from Reed Smoot when Utah was trying to get statehood that supported the stories as coming from imperfect scribes writing new concepts down very quickley. (Anyone who has ever been a secretary for any church organization knows they didn’t always get things on paper exactly perfect. I saw stamped, date and signed corrections to those JD records date stamped and corrected within a week of them being recorded.

I learned that when the Journal of Discourses was published they did it for profit and did not include recorded corrections that were not stored in the same place as the JD records.

As I was praying I realized that I had actually made the decision to leave Mormonism if Brigham Young taught that Adam was God and the only God with which we had to do.

If I had just waited the 4 days my friend needed to get access to a set of the Journal of Discourses then both of us would have read those words and left the church believing what we read was all there was to know.

Instead I was strongly impressed to keep looking and to find those Discourses asap. I persisted until the next day. when I found them in the home of an ex-seminary teacher that I had never met. I opened to the reference page from the anti mormon pamphlet I had only to find those very words underlined in red. I was stunned. Why would she stay in the church if she KNEW this?

That was when I first heard “the rest of the story”.

That night when I was saying my prayers I pondered the events of the previous week. During my prayer the words were very clearly impressed on my mind, “There is always a “rest of the story”. I have patronized you this time. I will not continue to patronize you because you have a very important work to do and it will be diminished if you continue to let this distract you and take up so much of your time and your thoughts.”

From this experience I learned that when I have a question I can ask God. If I get a confirmation from the Spirit that something is true or false it no longer troubles me. I know the answer can be trusted.

However, if I don’t get a clear answer, I can still choose to believe something or reject it, but I am responsible for what I choose to believe, not my leaders, not my church, or any other person or organization on Earth can be blamed for what I decide to believe.

Teaching principles I love and believing in something bigger than myself is not brainwashing.

Focus on the Good the Mormon Church does instead of all these pieces of information and you will have an easier time understanding why some people will never leave the LDS church.

It is hard to tell sometimes whether you are satirizing my blog or the LDS Church.

Take this that you wrote:

“Of course we would no longer have to do our own thinking or go over our church leader’s heads which would result in a personal relationship of our own with God because we could trust mortal men completely.”

Hello! Janine! That is exactly how the LDS Church operates today!

Church leaders require us to “trust mortal men completely.”

We are not supposed to “to do our own thinking.” That is what the leaders are for. To do our thinking for us.

Becky, I followed your advice and reread Packer's talk. After doing so, I reread the article. From a neutral point of view, I do not see any of your comments as being justified. The article presents some very real problems which the Mormon church needs to face. Rather than doing so, the church is doing everything in its power to misdirect the public and the members of the church. I know that many people within the church do not want to see the very real problems that exist. However, they do exist and pretending that they don't will not help anything in the long run. I think that people would do far better to heed J. Reuben Clark's more compelling statement concerning investigation of TCOJCOLDS, "If we have the truth, it cannot be harmed by investigation. If we have not the truth, it ought to be harmed.”

Little imaginative children when asked why they have done some mischief, have their answers ready, eg “A little Elf came, Mummy and told me to do it”
The church’s excuses for “grotty” behaviour have little more depth than
these, and are certainly as unbelievable. The God I worship is wise, honest and kind. He does not send revelation calculated to make
happily married couples part, and young girls become part of a plural marriage circle of which they have no understanding.
Certainly my God does not take away Free Agency by threatening people
with destruction by “a flaming sword”

We see it as an extraordinary coincidence that a Prophet receives a
revelation to ban Polygamy soon after he has a letter in his pocket from
the US Government. This letter has contained threats of extensive LDS property confiscation.

The revelations about early LDS history have changed many former
staunch believers into disbelieving cynics.

I completely understand and respect why people read and are affected by these kinds of articles. I was there. I wish I had adequate words to share my story and describe my experience to convey the process I went through and the conclusions I reached after years of doubt, questioning, and ultimately losing and then regaining my testimony of the Church Of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I can't do that in such a brief space. I just don't want to give the impression that I've always been a "faithful, 'brainwashed', unquestioning member." Not at all. I just now have a totally different perspective and very vested interest in people that are experiencing the same disaffection with the Church that I did. I think it is very hard to ever read something from a "neutral point of view". No matter what, it is almost impossible to see the point that an article or talk is trying to make when you have the filter of your own bias playing a role. That is what makes reading anything, ever, very difficult because we automatically place that bias into whatever it is that we are reading or seeing. I now understand things about Church History and problematic points of doctrine in a COMPLETELY different way than I used to . . . and it's because of experiences that I have had regarding them that I cannot explain to anyone else, because I know and understand them because I was aided by the Spirit to understand them . . . but I had to place myself and my bias in a different context to receive those answers. I'm very verbal about sharing feelings because of what I have personally experienced. It may not be what other people have experienced or are experiencing, but nonetheless, I feel compelled to share. My gospel understanding had to broken down to it's very foundation and built from the ground up after being obliterated almost completely . . . with only a very faint belief in God remaining in tact. I understand better than anyone might guess about disbelief and disaffection with the Church. I just happened to come out of it differently than a lot of people do. I'm glad about that and grateful for what that's meant in MY life, and it prompts me to want to share.

I am so sad when I hear of people "losing their testimonies" over issues such as the ones this article describes. Do I believe that people that don't join the Church or leave the Church or that lose their testimonies are damned? Absolutely not, and that is not what the LDS Church teaches either. The gospel of Jesus Christ as contained in the LDS Church is the most merciful, most loving, most all-encompassing, most encouraging and "saving" belief system out there. But you have to study THAT doctrine, and not the muck surrounding it (that I believe is put out there very purposefully by the adversary who opposes it) that prevents people from truly understanding the grace and majesty of the pure gospel. Joseph Smith experienced what he said he did. The Book of Mormon is what he said it was. Jesus is the Savior and he wants to save ALL people. And he has a plan in place to do that. . . . regardless of where people are at with their faith at this moment in time. Of that, I have no doubt. People are so hung up in the "how" and the "why" and the "perceived problems" of the Church and they focus so much attention on it THAT they miss the forest for the trees. The beauty of the gospel is missed, and that is so very sad to me. I almost missed it myself because I got so stuck on all the stuff that leaders have counseled us to be wary of. It IS faith destroying. Faith isn't always an easy choice, and almost any belief system has evidence that can discredit it. Choosing to believe, instead of doubting or questioning, is an important ingredient in gaining the spiritual witness that resolves seemingly "problematic" history or doctrine.

While I do think it is great you worked through the crisis in your own way and applaud your effort (which I have no doubt was a tremendous amount of effort and soul searching, something I relate to), it just doesn’t pan out that way for everybody. And I don’t think people are missing the forest for the trees at all, that just seems like more victim blaming as mentioned in the article. The church is hiding both the forest and the trees, and only presenting a matte painting to the members… a painting they can then surely just claim was an artist rendition anyway, and absolve themselves of any responsibility.

And to be clear, the church absolutely teaches you are damned if you are not a member in good standing, or do not become one. Damned in the literal meaning of the word, to have your progress halted. The church teaches your eternal progression only occurs at the highest levels of the celestial kingdom, and the only way to get there is to be a fully believing, and committed member of the one and only true church (with the many other requirements for that such as temple marriage, etc.) Sure, they do teach degrees of glory await pretty much everybody else rather than the idea of burning in a lake of fire for all eternity like mainstream Christianity teaches, but you are still damned and prevented from progress beyond that unless you are/were a faithful member.

“And I don’t think people are missing the forest for the trees at all, that just seems like more victim blaming as mentioned in the article. The church is hiding both the forest and the trees, and only presenting a matte painting to the members… a painting they can then surely just claim was an artist rendition anyway, and absolve themselves of any responsibility.”

As my child and I read JST Luke 6 this evening, it was interesting to us what Jesus said to do. We looked in vain for anything that required a Church or a prophet or a leader or the need for priestcraft.

What Jesus said to do has literally nothing whatsoever to do with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, nor any other denomination or sect.

The reason the Church has become the focus of ire is because the Church has sought diligently to interpose herself between God and his children, and the obvious motivation is to build an earthly kingdom where none dare to molest her or make her afraid. She has apparently done so through lying about her past, lying about her relationship with God, and lying about the meaning of the altered and decaying rites in what is called his house. She claims she’s always right, and has excluded the children’s Father’s voice from her “therapy sessions” with his children – because where he agrees with her, he’s irrelevant; where he disagrees with her, he’s damaging her power over his children. She claims to have the exclusive power to keep his children away from him, and she claims to have exclusive power to grant his children power to live with him – but only after they’re dead – if they will only agree she has all the authorities and powers she claims, and be baptized as a sign of this belief, and ever after pay her 10% of their gross earnings, else they will lose their ability to visit their Father’s house.

Is a demonstrably lying Church the bride of Christ? Is Christ a liar? Do not all liars partake of the second death (Rev. 21:8 – note well, motivation is not referred to and is therefore irrelevant)?

Is the proper role of priests to take money to teach the word of God? To teach a religion made up of newspapers and novels and the notions of men and women sugared over with scripture? To teach the people, once a month, to mount the Rameumptom? To alter the administration of the sacrament and thereby break its deep symbolism? To remove from and alter the remainder of the rites of our Father’s house? To supplant the words of our Father with the Church’s wisdom and traditions in the form of handbooks and manuals?

“Oh, you want someone to preach to you. You want religion, do you? There will be many willing to preach to you the philosophies of men mingled with scripture.”

Where, o where, do Mormons get their religious teachings? It ain’t the interwebz, and it ain’t in other churches. Where do you think Satan is supervising the teaching of the posterity of Adam? Every other church except the ones to whom the warning is being delivered?

And even there, if memory serves, the Book of Mormon does not necessarily define priestcraft in terms of riches, but more specifically as “declaring unto the people that every priest and teacher ought to become popular; and they ought not to labor with their hands, but that they ought to be supported by the people.” (Alma 1:3)

This sarcastic summation of Mormonism is painfully accurate from where I’m sitting:

The Gospel is simple and the purpose of life is clear: find the prophet. Once you’ve found the prophet, the thinking is done. Just do 100% of what he says. No more and no less. And then you’re home free.

Contrast the teachings of the Church with the Sermon on the Mount / Plain / Bountiful.

It is easy, on performing that comparison, to understand Abinadi’s declaration to the priests of Noah: “I say unto you, wo be unto you for perverting the ways of the Lord! For if ye understand these things ye have not taught them; therefore, ye have perverted the ways of the Lord.“

At a certain point you accept the reality you were deceived and then try to salvage what you can of your life. These guys are slippery professional liars, don't expect them to admit anything – they have literally to much too lose. Having said that, we have to get rid of the anger to get better.

"O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in [any] man or maketh flesh his arm." (2 Nephi 4:34)

Well, there is the Church-wide rescue effort announced by President Monson in the First Presidency Message from October 2013:

“For Latter-day Saints, the need to rescue our brothers and sisters who have, for one reason or another, strayed from the path of Church activity is of eternal significance. Do we know of such people who once embraced the gospel? If so, what is our responsibility to rescue them?”

Well, my point was that this very one sided negative argumentation that mocks the leaders makes me very sad, because that brought so much sorrow to someone I care a lot.

Doubts and questions are ok, but mocking… That makes me sad. The spirit that testifies of the truth is so very far away when questioning takes the steps towards mocking and disrespecting God, the prophet, the apostles, our bishop, our friends, our neighbors, or anyone for that matter. The post and comments also in this post seem to try to find the truth. When we are trying the find the truth we should do it simply by being humble and pray.

We are discussing spiritual things here, shouldnt we try to find the truth spiritually then also, and not by smart arguments.

Last time I commented your last post I promised to really find out for myself if the prophet and the apostles still are called and lead by our Savior Jesus Christ. I promised to examine history and the "counseling" way of decisions of the 15.

I did my studying for many weeks, ponder and prayed for this that I promised to do.

My testamony was again strengthened of our Prophet, his councelors and the 12 apostels. They really are prophets of God. They are called of God and still lead by our Savior. They are not perfect, but still Prophets of God.

2. If they are lying, then they are not God’s priests nor his prophets. If they are God’s priests and prophets, then they are not lying. So when President, and soon no doubt to be Prophet, Nelson tells me that the united voice of the 15 apostles is the voice of God – Vox Apostoli, Vox Dei, I call this “doctrine” – and proceeds to lie to my face in silly and stupid things that can be checked on, like the false claim that no President of this Church was ever elected to office (Brigham Young was) – then he, and others like him (The United 15 Declared Alcohol Consumption Is Contrary To The Law Of God – oh yeah? Not according to D&C 89.), make it very difficult for me to remain in the Church. This is, of course, an expansion of the earlier lie that the First Presidency cannot lead us astray. And that, too, was an expansion of an earlier lie that the President himself couldn’t lead us astray – even though the Church says he did (Brigham and Adam-God [oh yes, he said it – originally held your salvation hostage to whether you believed him, and when nobody did, backed off {similar to the infamous edict against oral sex issued by the FP under Kimball}], Brigham and black priesthood ban, and so on). Lying liars lie. That’s what they do. Even if they inteded good to come about as a result of their lies, as Nibley said in The Way of the Church, “Whoever lied with any other intent?”

And, as Rock Waterman demonstrated, we have had liars in the chiefest of chief seats RE: Wilford Woodruff.

3. As Slavin said in The Hunt for Red October, “What’s my tone got to do with it?” I took issue with Rock Waterman originally over his tone. I thought he was being needlessly antagonistic towards the leadership. But you know what? That tone is the sound of those who have been betrayed. That is anger, angst, and mourning. Those in whom we have trusted have betrayed us and continue to gaslight. It doesn’t matter that they lie in the service of what they call good.

With the preacher excised from the Endowments, what is the implicit message now?

4. The only thing I wish would happen is that the leadership would SHUT UP! They don’t have the control over the past that the Catholics did, the kind required to make our bondage sure and our chains complete. If you’re going to play the infallibility card, then you better NEVER make reference to reality – things that can be checked on – and you better NEVER contradict what “everybody knows” – things that most people will think are true. Better to claim infallibility and fall silent than to open your mouth and be revealed as lying liars who lie.

That’s actually constructive criticism.

But it won’t happen because the whole point of claiming infallibility is to meddle! It is to control the hearts and minds of men, to make right seem wrong, to make the righteous seem iniquitous, to be in a place to abuse and not be abused.

I think we all agree that in your efforts to rescue those who are struggling, no ”program” [i.e. The Addiction Program] is needed. Rather, priesthood leaders who hold keys, who are filled with charity, and who seek the guidance of the Spirit, will know in each case how best to proceed.

The following summary of the principles that we discussed during your visit may be helpful to you and local priesthood leaders;

(1) The Church does not hide historical facts. In fact, it makes every effort to be open and honest about its past and current actions.

For those who like the Book of Mormon, 3rd Nephi ch 14 : v1 says he was addressing the “little people” or “the multitude” and then in v15 clearly identifies the issues , well read the whole thing! Ask, who’s responsible to keep in check the leadership if it is not the followers?

If Ford or GM made trashy products it wouldn’t be long before the people stop buying them.
If parents pushed trashy philosophy on to children, they will grow up one day to run away!

It is the responsibility of the individual to insure his personal success long term.

“O Lord, I have trusted in thee, and I will trust in thee forever. I will not put my trust in the arm of flesh; for I know that cursed is he that putteth his trust in the arm of flesh. Yea, cursed is he that putteth his trust in [any] man or maketh flesh his arm.” (2 Nephi 4:34)

Surely the Lord God will do nothing, but he revealeth his secret unto his servants the prophets. Amos 3; 7

Interesting problem we have here?

Does God have a secret? Could God be keeping some secrets from us? Are Prophets required to reveal the secret that God will only reveal to them? It doesn’t say Prophets are required to reveal or even that God wants Prophets to reveal everthing?

“If I was to show the Latter-day Saints all the revelations that the Lord has shown unto me, there is scarce a man that would stay with me, they could not bear it.”
― Joseph Smith Jr.

“If I revealed all that has been made known to me, scarcely a man on this stand would stay with me.’ and ‘Brethren, if I were to tell you all I know of the kingdom of God, I do know that you would rise up and kill me.” ~ Joseph Smith Jr.

“In your hands or that of any other person, so much power would, no doubt, be dangerous. I am the only man in the world whom it would be safe to trust with it. Remember, I am a prophet!” ~ Joseph Smith Jr.

(I’d like to hear Corbin’s response if Elder Oaks was to say that in next General Conference 🙂

“If the Church knew all the commandments, one-half they would condemn through prejudice and ignorance.” – Joseph Smith

I may be off but the above quotes don’t sound all to dissimiliar to Elder Packer’s “Money Quote”

There is a temptation for the writer or the teacher of Church history to want to tell everything, whether it is worthy or faith promoting or not. Some things that are true are not very useful.

A few more:

“God hath not revealed anything to Joseph [calling himself by name], but what He will make known unto the Twelve, and even the least Saint may know all things as fast as he is able to bear them.” – Joseph Smith

“Many men will say, “I will never forsake you, but will stand by you at all times.” But the moment you teach them some of the mysteries of the Kingdom that are retained in the heavens and are to be revealed to the children of men when they are prepared for them they will be the first to stone you and put you to death. It was this same principle that crucified the Lord Jesus Christ, and will cause the people to kill the prophets in this generation.” – Joseph Smith

I’m seeing a lot of covering up here…

Based on this article, we can choose to look at the current Church Leadership as not revealing everything, suppressing, covering up, lying, half truths, etc. Could we also argue that God has set this pattern followed by all the Prophets since the world began. Was Eve really formed from Adam’s rib?

Maybe the real question is why do we have an easier time excepting half truths and suppression by old prophets but not current prophets?

Also

I’m not sure what the venue would be to discuss all the mysteries, “not use-ful” history, etc? I’ve taught my share of seminary and gospel doctrine and usally the spirit isn’t prompting me to go there. Probably the same with the brethren in general conference? I guess there is plenty still to chew on with faith repentance, baptism, Holy Ghost and endure to the end.

In the mean time maybe we should still follow the advice of Brother Joseph:

“If you will stay with the majority of the Twelve Apostles, and the records of the Church, you will never be led astray.” ~ Joseph Smith Jr. (But Joseph, even if all the record is not being shared??)

Lastly (one last Joseph Smith quote):

“Never give up an old tried friend, who has waded through all manner of toil, for your sake, and throw him away because fools may tell you he has some faults.”
― Joseph Smith Jr.

For now I guess I’ll look at the current 15 as old friends, sorry Corbin I guess that makes you the fool. : )

Friends also make themselves available to you and don’t deal with you through a PR machine of “carefully worded denials.” Friends also tend not to have a “We don’t apologize” policy when they’ve done something wrong.

Ironically, I just saw a quote from John Dehlin’s survey of 3000 unbelieving Mormons on the reasons they left the church. His initial results were published January 31, 2012, meaning the survey may have been conducted in 2011 – four years ago.

Catch the last sentence:

“Most respondents cited multiple primary/strong factors in losing their belief … This may challenge conventional wisdom that some who lose their faith do so because of single-issue hang-ups. Many respondents made the case that it wasn’t necessarily the historical issue per se that led to their disbelief, but rather a sense of betrayal at what was often viewed as a dishonest approach to the church’s history.”

Properly understood, Amos 3:7 is not only not the ace the orthodox think it is, but condemns the Church in her pretensions, particularly in light of the Endowments.

Amos 8:11-13, now, that may well apply.

However, it occurred to me that controlling the past through the forgery of scripture and history is not only not unique to Catholicism, Judaism, and Mormonism, but is also what is at issue in the dispute over evolution, and shown in the massive amounts of scientific fraud we see lately. For what is science but a rival priesthood? And why shouldn’t they show the exact same solutions to the exact same problem – how to exert, extend, and justify control over the hearts and minds of men?

Prophets must be doctrinally infallible, or the entire foundation of the LDS Church will crumble.

This is the whole heart of the matter. This is what those at FAIRMORMON, and Mormon “Authorities” through them (and with the new Essays) have been trying to obfuscate for years. This is what was taught early on in the Church (Joseph Smith: I never told you I was perfect but there are NO ERRORS in the revelations I have taught) Continued on by Brigham Young:

I have told you what causes apostacy. It arises from neglect of prayers and duties, and the Spirit of the Lord leaves those who are thus negligent and they begin to think that the authorities of the church are wrong. In the days of Joseph the first thing manifested in the case of apostacy was the idea that Joseph was liable to be mistaken, and when a man admits that in his feelings and sets it down as a fact, it is a step towards apostacy, and he only needs to make one step more and he is cut off from the church. That is the case in any man. When several of the Twelve were cut off, the first step was that Joseph was a prophet, but he had fallen from his office and the Lord would suffer him to lead the people wrong. When persons get that idea in their minds, they are taking the first step to apostacy. If the Lord has designed that I should lead you wrong, then let us all go to hell together and, as Joseph used to say, we will take hell by force, turn the devils out and make a heaven of it. (Van Wagoner, Complete Discourses of Brigham Young, pg. 1420)

With lots more quotes from Mormon “authorities”. This infallibility claim was even touted by Dallin Oaks recently,

I also testify to you that the teachings the Savior has given us in his own words recorded in the New Testament and in modern revelation through his authorized spokesman are true and they set out for us the way to avoid being deceived by seducing spirits, to use the scriptural term, or by those who have themselves been deceived by seducing spirits. Stand fast with the leadership of the church. I heard President Hinckley in describing a revelation he had received concerning the building of small temples form which he will soon benefit in this part of the world that he did not claim perfection that there was only one perfect person who had ever lived upon this earth and even the prophets of God were not perfect. But, as the Prophet Joseph Smith said, on a great occasion, ‘there is no error in the teachings.’Spoken under the influence of the spirit of the Lord, witnessed to be true in the hearts and minds of those who have the gift of the Holy Ghost, those teachings are the Lord’s will to his people. And I testify to you that these teachings are true and that if we hold with and follow the current leadership of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, we will stay on the path toward eternal life. (Dallin Oaks, “Boise Rescue Transcript”, 117, On tape, 1:12:38)

Don Bradley is a friend of mine, as well, and he is a very kind, smart and knowledgeable guy.

So are Richard Bushman and D. Michael Quinn–all very kind, smart and incredibly knowledgeable.

And all three of them appear to take the position that Church leaders weren’t hiding the history because they simply were not aware of the history until recently.

So I know I am up against some pretty stiff competition when I respectfully disagree with them on this point.

I am not saying all Church leaders knew everything bad in Church history.

But I do think the evidence shows that some Church leaders knew a sizeable amount of bad stuff about Church history, have known it for decades, and have taken steps to prevent the members from finding out about it.

The problem is, comparing Mormon “prophets” who claim to have infallible teachings and for some reason won’t share them, with the “Teacher” who wants to reveal Church History or teachings already taught is a red herring.

If the “spirit” isn’t prompting Mormon “prophets” to reveal anything but the basics, then why do we have Adam God, etc? Maybe because there is another thing at play here, the “don’t cast pearls before swine” line. This was given as the reason for the suppression and vilification of the Adam God “theory”, which wasn’t the same as the Adam God DOCTRINE.

This idea that no one is ever “ready” to receive the “mysteries” is simply another way to say that the fault is on them, not on the “prophet” who taught irrational, false, racist, doctrines. To try and claim that you can teach faith, repentance, baptism, and keep people from the fact that Adam is God to Mormons (in Brigham Young’s day) is simply irrational. The only reason those under Young believed it, was because they had faith “in the arm of flesh”, or Brigham Young as “prophet”.

The same game is being played today. Smith rightly claimed that if some found out about some of his teachings, he would be targeted. He was. That is why he taught and practiced many of them in SECRET. That is also why he was killed, trying to suppress those teachings. He claimed that “Some sin is not really sin”.

Lying is considered a sin, but not when Mormon “authorities” do so in an effort to cover up their own sins by “lying for the Lord”.

Wait. Why did Nelson make it a point to say this in the Sunday session of the October 2014 General Conference?

All leaders in the Lord’s Church are called by proper authority. No prophet or any other leader in this Church, for that matter, has ever called himself or herself. No prophet has ever been elected.

There is only one reason that I can think of – Nelson was the moving force behind Denver Snuffer’s excommunication over Passing the Heavenly Gift. Might that single claim – that Brigham Young was elected, not appointed nor called – be all he took away from that book? After all, if Brigham campaigned for the position and was elected by popular vote, and the historical docs say that is the case, then that causes problems for the current leadership’s claims to power and authority through an unbroken line of properly called and appointed prophets. The “divine cooties” are missing a transmission vector.

My comment was intended as a reply to David Banack’s via Facebook above. I’m not sure why it double posted, but it makes more sense in context.

The inspiration comment was meant to cover the faithful LDS position about leaders being especially inspired and close to God. I agree that General Church authorities are called largely because of service to the organization itself and not necessarily for any other quality.

I agree that GA’s are called because of service to the organization, which is defined as a combination of strict obedience to the commandments, a good success record with home-teaching and such in lower-level leadership callings, and the ability to unquestioningly do what you are told.

Corbin Volluz:
Thanks for your comments, Kaj.I appreciate where you are coming from.

My question is whether Church leaders are due the respect they demand if they have proven themselves unworthy of it.

I understand this point. When we feel that someone has done wrong to us, we feel angry and disappointed. When we feel like this it is natural to get as far away as possible from people who hurt us. And many members and ex-members apparently feel this way of the leadership of the church.

When it is about the prophets of God, the question remains if they are called from God (even if one has these feelings). Either they are, or they are not. And this is answered only through the spirit of the Lord. No digging of the history, no endless search of faults, no smart arguments and speculation of what prophets said, not said, meant, did not mean etc… will give you the real answer because spiritual things acquire spiritual actions.

I understand that you feel that the 15 are not worthy of respect, because this of this betrayel you feel the are involved in. What if they still are Gods prophets and you let these history facts stay in between that?

The gospel and the truth is far more simple than this deep complicated discussion. For example: “And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things”. Even a child knows how this works.

I asked you last time to really find out the truth of the 15, by reading the book of mormon and pray. I know you study the scriptures, conference talks, historical papers etc… a lot. I have read many things you write and you are very well informed. I feel though you study with the intention to find faults… Am I wrong?

When it is about the prophets of God, the question remains if they are called from God (even if one has these feelings). Either they are, or they are not.

And if the present set are called from God, so what?

Does that mean the next set will called by God?

Does that mean they obey God?

Does that mean they do always speak by the power of the Holy Ghost?

Does that mean they ever speak by the power of the Holy Ghost?

Does that mean, as Elder Bednar is reputed to have said, “I am scripture?”

Does that mean they, like cops, are above the law?

Does that mean they can sin if it advances the Church’s interest?

Does that mean we owe them obeisance?

Does that mean if they do wrong then God is the author of their sin?

Does that mean if they say it, God must honor it?

Does that mean if they contradict themselves and scripture that God is the author of their confusion?

Does it mean that if they lie, God is the author of the lie?

Does being called of God mean anything other than God has asked someone to fill a place?

Does God dictate how each man fulfills his role?

Does “being called of God” end the free will of man?

Do not servants of God come in different flavors – “good and faithful,” “faithful and wise,” “evil and faithless,” “slothful and unwise,” “wicked,” and so on?

Do not good and faithful servants of God enter into his presence whilst yet alive, as Joseph did?

Has any “called of God” leader in the LDS Church claimed to have passed through the veil as Joseph did?

Has any “called of God” leader in the LDS Church brought others through the veil as Joseph did with Sidney Rigdon (D&C 76)?

Did not even Caiaphas, the High Priest who delivered up Jesus to be slain of the Romans, prophesy?

Do you understand it doesn’t matter if they were called of God? if they don’t do his will?

Do you understand it doesn’t matter if they were called of God if they don’t speak the truth?

Do you understand it doesn’t matter if they were called of God if they are not teaching you how to equal or exceed themselves in the things of righteousness?

Do you understand it doesn’t matter if they were called of God if they are not supporting and sustaining you in the path of Christian discipleship?

Do you understand it doesn’t matter if they were called of God if they are opposing you in your discipleship?

Do you understand it doesn’t matter if they were called of God if they are oppressing you in your beliefs and speech?

Do you understand it doesn’t matter if they were called of God if they suppress and omit the actual commandments of the Lord while substituting their own cultural notions, ideas, philosophies, and precepts?

Do you understand it doesn’t matter if they were called of God if they take your money and impose creeds and threaten and denigrate you?

Just because you were hired – and they are the husbandmen, hirelings, working for money – doesn’t mean you know what you’re supposed to be doing.

It doesn’t mean you’re doing what you should be doing.

It doesn’t mean you want to do what you ought to be doing.

It doesn’t mean you’re competent.

It doesn’t mean you know the owner.

It doesn’t mean you are a friend to the owner.

It doesn’t mean you’re not abusing your coworkers.

It doesn’t mean you’re not abusing your customers.

It doesn’t mean you’re not skimming off the till.

It doesn’t mean you’re rendering the fruit to the servants of the owner of the vineyard – meaning supporting and sustaining the prophets sent from the presence of God in their task to teach the children of men how to enter into the presence of God.

It doesn’t mean you’re not abusing, beating, casting out, and slaying the servants of the owner of the vineyard – meaning excommunicating, reviling, slandering, and libeling the prophets sent from the presence of God to receive the fruit of the vineyard.

7 Let us here observe, that a religion that does not require the sacrifice of all things, never has power sufficient to produce the faith necessary unto life and salvation; for from the first existence of man, the faith necessary unto the enjoyment of life and salvation never could be obtained without the sacrifice of all earthly things: it was through this sacrifice, and this only, that God has ordained that men should enjoy eternal life; and it is through the medium of the sacrifice of all earthly things, that men do actually know that they are doing the things that are well pleasing in the sight of God. When a man has offered in sacrifice all that he has, for the truth’s sake, not even withholding his life, and believing before God that he has been called to make this sacrifice, because he seeks to do his will, he does know most assuredly, that God does and will accept his sacrifice & offering, & that he has not nor will not seek his face in vain. Under these circumstances, then, he can obtain the faith necessary for him to lay hold on eternal life.

8 It is in vain for persons to fancy to themselves that they are heirs with those, or can be heirs with them, who have offered their all in sacrifice, and by this means obtained faith in God and favor with him so as to obtain eternal life, unless they in like manner offer unto him the same sacrifice, and through that offering obtain the knowledge that they are accepted of him.

Here is why our leaders, if called of God to the chief seats, where they enjoy a “modest living stipend” which covers all their temporal needs and then some, deserve our pity.

They cannot be saved, according to Joseph. If they have not performed the required sacrifice of all earthly things before obtaining their high calling, they cannot perform it without abdicating their position. And how many have, as a historical matter, abidcated?

Why then would God call these men to these places, do you think? It may not be for the reasons you had supposed.

29 He commandeth that there shall be no priestcrafts; for, behold, priestcrafts are that men preach and set themselves up for a light unto the world, that they may get gain and praise of the world; but they seek not the welfare of Zion.

30 Behold, the Lord hath forbidden this thing; wherefore, the Lord God hath given a commandment that all men should have charity, which charity is love. And except they should have charity they were nothing. Wherefore, if they should have charity they would not suffer the laborer in Zion to perish.

31 But the laborer in Zion shall labor for Zion; for if they labor for money they shall perish.

It is not “different” depending on what team one’s on. It is not “prophetic leadership” just because we do it, nor is it “priestcraft” because they do it.

The Preacher in the old endowment was a message for the hirelings, a beacon of hope, a way out. But, tragically, lest anyone “get the wrong idea,” they cast him out!

And the fact that none have been public eyewitness of Christ since Joseph says they haven’t been performing the sacrifice before their call to the chief seats. Also, don’t most of them come from very successful business, legal, and educational backgrounds?

… in fact, one begins to wonder if these teachings on the necessity and scope of sacrifice pertaining to salvation were the real reason the Lectures on Faith were unceremoniously dumped by the leadership.

Ok. I understand where you are coming from. I dont believe necessarily that a testamony of the book of mormon straight away would be the answer to the 15 today. It might be, but surely one must recieve a testamony of the 15 separately and you have made up your mind about this matter already I believe. I hear you and I know these facts you are presenting. To me they are not this life changing as they are to you. You have the right to feel this way. Please keep studying the scriptures, ponder and pray. Something that I recently read that really gave me perspective was 3. Nephi 11 about the holy ghost and fire that Christ teaches. Elder Dunn of the seventies ellaborates on this in his talk about holy ghost and fire. Youll find it at lds.org.

If I take a snapshot of the church Joseph Smith established and the LDS Church today, I see a vast chasm in between.

There is very little the two have in common.

Many of the offices are the same, and much of the rhetoric is similar, but whereas Joseph Smith actually received and published revelations in support of his claim to be a revelator, not even one of the 15 men who claim to be revelators today has produced even one such revelation.

And it has been a century since any of them did.

Something seems very wrong.

It reminds me of the old story Abraham Lincoln liked to tell, asking how many legs would a dog have if you called his tail a leg?

The usual answer was five.

Lincoln would reply, “No. The dog would still have four legs. Calling his tail a leg doesn’t make it one.”

P.S. You might not want to quote Elder Dunn too much in the future. His reputation got a tad tarnished a while back when it came out he made up a lot of his miraculous stories.

And yet, perhaps there is something to learn from his example, for Elder Dunn was called to his position as Seventy by the First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve, too.

And the same leaders who called Paul H. Dunn to the Seventy are the same people, or called by the same people, as the current First Presidency and Quorum of the Twelve.

We, as a church, do not worry too much about the motivations of the men who led the primitive church away from the Gospel; it is enough that we recognize that over time that Gospel became “the philosophies of men mingled with scripture”. So, should we excuse immoral actions of the Brethren by viewing it through the lens of “intent”, or call a spade a spade and simply evaluate their actions on their own merits?

I don’t think that the Brethren are evil, nor do they have evil intent, but that is not the point. The point is that they demand one standard of the people in the Church, but carve out a different standard for themselves. Do they seek to bring the facts to light or do they seek to suppress them? If they have made a mistake do they repent, acknowledge their sin and change their ways, or do they continue the practice?

I think we have enough evidence to judge those narrow questions.

We, for the most part, are fortunate that we have little power or authority to tempt us to exercise unrighteous dominion over others. But they are both the victims and beneficiaries of the system that they oversee and perpetuate. To the extent that they build up their own kindom behind a facade of the Kingdom of God, they do so at their own peril.

It is impossible to see, just as with the primitive church, exactly where they first started going astray, but at some point a line in the sand is crossed where you can clearly see that the choices made are immoral. I think this is one of those cases, where we can see the fruits of those seeds planted in earlier times. In this particular case, it is not good fruit.

And that, I believe, is the test for true prophets. He never said, “follow the prophet/pope – you can’t go wrong!”, He said “by their fruits ye shall know them”. We cling to the seeming safety and comfort of the Church, it’s community and traditions, but that is simply the same thing that Catholics, Baptists or Buddhists do. When Christ came in the Meridian of time, all those that followed the established religion and refused to open their hearts to His spirit, ended up rejecting the Son of God. I fully expect that when the Lord’s servant comes we will be faced with a similar (difficult) choice. I hope we do a better job.

This is eerily similar to what was doctored concerning ISIS reports to the President and public. Make it all look like everything is going well. The key is what changed in the Church when history triggered these events? What year did the true church become not so true?

In retrospect, I think 1844 was a big year when the apostles took over leadership of the LDS Church after Joseph’s death . . . and 1847 is like unto it when Brigham Young reconstituted the First Presidency and had himself elected as Church President.

And more recently, when the apostles did away with the Church Patriarch . . . an office represented in section 124 as being on par with that of Church President.

So we have gone from having a Church leadership consisting of Church Patriarch and First Presidency and Quorum of Apostles to having a Church leadership consisting of Apostles, Apostles and more Apostles.

When did they start going astray… were they ever not? Joseph was the lone sighted man in the kingdom of the blind.

President Joseph Smith read the 14th chapter of Ezekiel–said the Lord had declared by the Prophet, that the people should each one stand for himself, and depend on no man or men in that state of corruption of the Jewish church–that righteous persons could only deliver their own souls–applied it to the present state of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints–said if the people departed from the Lord, they must fall–that they were depending on the Prophet, hence were darkened in their minds, in consequence of neglecting the duties devolving upon themselves, envious towards the innocent, while they afflict the virtuous with their shafts of envy.

That was our beginnings – unwilling to do what the Lord asked and thereby come to know for ourselves, we instead refused to grow up, and chose to suckle at Joseph’s teat until he was taken, then, looking for another sugar mama to bring us the things of heaven we were unwilling to obtain by our own efforts, we latched on to Brigham’s teat – only he fed us formula, and ever since we have been taught that we must suck at the president’s teat evermore, and whosoever departs from this teat suffereth himself to be led into temptation, for the which we cry “off with their heads!”

And the formula they’ve been feeding us has been getting worse and worse. I think they’re using that Chinese knock-off stuff.

The most troubling conclusion is that LDS leaders do not believe in the restoration. They cover up history because it is the source of their own doubts and they cannot possibly reconcile faith in the restoration with the history they want to hide.

For the timid searchers I would pose this thought: Jesus descended from the adulterous, indeed murderous, relationship between King David and Bathsheba. We know that, but still have faith in Christ. Why would we be less inclined to believe in the restoration if we knew Brigham Young lied, conspired and killed?

If honesty removes the pretense of virtue from some characters in history, then it only leaves truth behind. Truth, and belief in it, is far more rugged than the flimsy and protecting lies offered by soft, weak and worm-tongued false ministers.

When Reed Smoot was called into the Twelve, he did not have a testimony. It surprised people he was given the position. David O. McKay likewise was not strong in the faith when he was called into the Twelve. But these men had business and other talents that the organization needed.

To project onto the leaders attributes they neither claim nor have is part of the problem. It is altogether possible, indeed very likely, that many members know more about church history than the church’s leaders. It is also likely many members have greater faith in the restoration than the church’s leaders. But the leaders control and manage the organization. Members do not.

The more you understand LDS history, the more you come to realize God can and does work in the affairs of mankind even when men are weak, faithless, insecure and stubborn. The truth allows each of us to accept responsibility for our own faith, instead of relying on the mirage of trusting others.

Mormonism is wonderful, despite what a mess the history has been. It is not unlike the ups and downs of the Old Testament people.

I think that is the key–that “the truth allows each of us to accept responsibility for our own faith, instead of relying on the mirage of trusting others.”

This is the thing that is most difficult to do for many LDS, and pretty much everybody in every other religion, as well.

We have been trained not to trust ourselves, but to trust our leaders, to the point we are taught that we will be blessed for doing what our leaders tell us, even if it is wrong.

That is pretty extreme.

The scriptures, including the Book of Mormon, warn us against putting our faith in the arm of the flesh, and yet that is exactly what we do.

Although we are also taught we have the right to receive personal revelation, that teaching comes with the caveat that the only revelation we can receive must affirm the truth of what the leaders teach us.

If our revelation does not affirm current teaching, it is coming from the wrong source.

This is how the LDS Church has effectively made a nullity of personal revelation, and thrown its members back completely on relying on its leaders.

It occurred to me, thanks in no small part to Dr. Shades’s irrelevant sniping at Snuffer, and Grindael’s motivational self-revelation, that the critics of Mormonism and Our Beloved Infallible Leaders are engaged in the same project.

Both of them are, rather ineffectively, attempting to stick LDS Church, past, present, and future, onto Joseph Smith. The critics because they believe and are sure Joseph was big fat lecherous fraud and therefore everything coming from him is fraudulent lechery, which, if true, would justify their unbelief, and Our Dear Leaders because they have no knowledge of the things of heaven and rest their faith and claims on tendentious and expanded definitions of key terms and an extremely unstable historical narrative centered on the transmission of what amounts to divine cooties from Joseph – “priesthood keys” transmitted by the imposition of hands which make them the de jure, if not de facto, kings of the world – which, if true, would justify their beliefs, practices, and dominion. (That this position implies Catholicism, and not the LDS Church, is “the One True Church,” having divine cooties from Peter, goes unmentioned.)

There is much middle ground being excluded. Both our apostates and our apostles can lack truth. It could be that both Joseph was a true prophet of God and that the Church after 1831 was false by her own definitions, standards, and scriptures; that the history and scriptures she appeals to to prove her claims are largely forged or fraudulent; it can be that divine cooties don’t exist. It can be that the only real authority and power is the truth: knowledge of the way things were, are, and will be.

Neither the critics nor Our Dear Leaders seem terribly interested in doing the will of God; neither seem to care about the truth. But both seem very interested in appearing to be right.

The biggest question I ask myself is, “why would Christ wait almost two thousand years to restore His gospel only to have it fall apart in a few short years?” Personally I don’t think He did. Otherwise, I would think He would have done a little more research or a sound vetting process for potential “prophets” that would have ended with better results.

Consider this;

The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints claims to be “the only true church” that has been given the true and everlasting restored gospel of Jesus Christ, through Christ and God the Father.

The Church claims to have been given the proper priesthood keys from Joseph Smith to ordain and to perform sacred ordinances for the salvation of man by John the baptist, Peter, James and John.

The Church claims to have or had a prophet who speaks or spoke to God and Christ to lead The Church in righteousness and to never lead the members astray.

After considering these basic points, I am astounded that The “true” Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints with Christ at the head, would have such a dark and questionable history. Why so much history to be ashamed of? Is there so much damning evidence in church history that it could bring “the church of cards” to come crashing down? Apparently so… Someone failed and it wasn’t deity or heavenly messengers.

A true Church of Jesus Christ would have an open and transparent history that every member would know by heart and love to share. No blame game required! I am quite confident that I know with whom the “divine cooties” originated. Until Christ comes again, His simple gospel of love is sufficient for me.

P.S. My wife, daughter and I enjoyed meeting you and your wife this past July in Concrete at M&M’s house. Hope to see you again or chat sometime.

You must be aware that there are critics only too ready to paint a “dark and questionable history” of Christianity itself that will make the Mormon experience seem like Mr. Roger’s neighborhood. The Crusades, witch hunts, forced conversions, suppression of scripture, religious wars of the 17th Century, corruption in all its forms – a list a mile long. Why did there need to be a Reformation of a church left in the care of the apostle Peter?

There’s another aspect to history on this planet – usually ignored – that has to be considered. There is a very real personage named Satan who also has influence, lots of it, on this planet. We can expect him to fight against any restoration of the Gospel with the same zeal he went after Jesus and the church of 2,000 years ago. Satan is going to spread lies; it’s what he does. There were those then living who labeled Christ a deceiver (John 7:12). Huh? The prophets sent by God have generally received a rough reception, as Jesus reminded his opponents.

The fact that there is said to be a “dark history” to anything cannot be taken by itself to be proof of darkness. What’s being claimed? Is there a reasonable response? And the very vigor of the opposition may tell us something about both the target and its detractors. Why the fuss? Why the zeal to destroy?

And because mortals are imperfect, any and all imperfections are going to be seized upon by somebody as invalidating the whole enterprise. Anti-Mormonism is built on this foundation. Monty, an atheist would say you haven’t gone far enough in your rejection of dark history – Christianity itself must be jettisoned as a delusion by the same reasoning. But the just walk by faith in this temporary, mortal experience, faithful to a personal witness from God and not relying solely (or even primarily) on the state of historical opinion. The status of Jesus Christ, let alone Joseph Smith, is frequently revised downward by smarties of this world.

The Book of Mormon is not evidence of darkness; it’s an evidence of divine light and the divine approbation of Joseph Smith. It’s a forceful witness of the divinity of the Savior. There are plenty more evidences, but each individual must judge what counts as evidence, and therein lies the challenge of the quest for truth.

Frank Staheli This is my wifes account we share one for transparancy. All of you my heart goes out to you. I am not Mormon however I was raised very strict and legalistic Penticostal my entire life and when I was of an age to start reading and doing research on my own I found many things that my Church would teach to be wrong I guess there is a common thread there and I believe it is self serving on behalf of the Chirch. I went so far as to completley deny any faith for a long time in my young adult life. I "ran from God" so to speak. However what I can tell you is this if you open your heart up to God and not a Church you will find answers. I found myself drawn back to the one place that always gave me peace and that was the Bible. I started reading it for myself I baught books started learning how to study scripture in light of scripture and how to use proper exegisis in my study and something marvous happened. My faith returned and not because of something a Preacher or Pastor told me but because of the power of the Holy Spirit he revealed the truth to me. I would encourage you to set aside any teaching of any other scholor and or Church go the the origin of even the Mormon faith the Bible and study it dicect it consume it. It is hard work however I can make you this promise if your heart is open to God you will find the peace and the Gospel there. God bless you all and I will pray for you. Pardon any mis spelling I am on my phone so this is dificult.

Erin Elizabeth Only true church? Answering that question would require a lengthy discussion on what "true" means. I do believe that the LDS church is the only church that contains the "fullness of the gospel" and that exaltation is made possible only through the authority it possesses to perform saving ordinances. Do I believe good people from other religions and other walks of life will be saved according the world's definition of saved? Absolutely. Do I believe faithful Mormons will be the only ones in "heaven"? No way. But covenant keeping Mormons (i.e. Those that enter and keep their covenants either in this life or when given the opportunity after this life) will be the only ones to receive "all that the Father hath" (i.e. eternal progression and eternal family relationships)

I guess that would depend on how you constitute a lie and also how you go about things when you feel you've discovered one. I was bothered by many, many of the same things that former LDS people are bothered and angered by. I was too, for a long time. And then I humbled myself and started asking God personally about the things that bothered me instead of simply trusting what I read in print. Prayer is an amazing tool when dealing with doubt and disillusionment. It took me three years of misery and anger before I decided to try it, but after I did, all of the pieces fell into place and over a period of time I received REMARKABLE answers and amazing insights about each and every concern that people like to go on and on about. Explanations and answers are there. You just have to be willing to find them the right way. God is the only omniscient one. He can explain what other people are just conjecturi g about. Some things in history happened exactly as anti- Mormons say they did. But it's not the history that is problematic, it is the interpretation thereof.

Becky Crandall Littlefield Interesting! If you've received answers to these issues don't hold them back from the rest of us! Please don't say that they're too personal or sacred to share (classic cop out).

The Barker Brothers’ Projects

“…we are asking our Church leaders to inquire of the Lord if the one year wait on the temple sealing can be changed…”

These videos were created for Latter-day Saint parents and allies to voice their love for their LGBT brothers and sisters, sons and daughters. They want to give a message of comfort and support to other parents who are navigating the difficult conflicts that can arise in families around this issue.

“Cogito!” (“I think!”) follows the intellectual adventures of a recovering academic outside the walls of academia.

Quote of the Month

"It is not as a child that I believe and confess Jesus Christ. My hosanna is born of a furnace of doubt." (Fyodor Dostoevsky)